Read Layout 1 text version

AT THE

CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

October 31 ­ November 3

Washington Hilton | Washington, DC PRELIMINARY PROGRAM

AS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2010

52nd ANNUAL MEETING

2010

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

THANK YOU

to the following sponsors for your generous support!

YEAR LONG GOLD PARTNER

Elsevier

Conference Program Committee

NCURA 2010 Vice President

Judy L. Fredenberg, The University of Montana

AM52 Co-Chairs

Diane Barrett, University of Wisconsin-Madison Craig A. Reynolds, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

Program Committee

Matt L. Berry, University of Oklahoma Norman Campus Tara Bishop, NCURA Huron Consulting Group Vincent A."Bo" Bogdanski, Colorado State University David Curren, National Institutes of Health Nancy S. Daneau, State University of New York at Stony Brook Marti L. Dunne, New York University Timothy C. Edwards, University of Montana

YEAR LONG SILVER PARTNERS

ATTAIN, LLC

Patrick W. Fitzgerald, Harvard University G. Margaret Griscavage, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Ty Helpinstill, University of Texas at Austin Kathleen Larmett, NCURA Gregory Luttrell, University of Notre Dame Terry A. May, Michigan State University

Baker Tilly

Anita Mills, New York University Dennis J. Paffrath, University of Maryland, Baltimore Ben A. Prince, University of Massachusetts Medical School at Worcester Thomas J. Roberts, Florida Gulf Coast University

Information Technology Works, Inc., IT Works

Marc Schiffman, NCURA Josine Stallinga, Elsevier Georgette Sakumoto, University of Hawaii Denise A.Wallen, University of New Mexico

ANNUAL MEETING PARTNER

EMMANUEL COLLEGE

2

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WELCOME!

At the Confluence of Creation and Collaboration Closing in on the 52nd Annual Meeting

To say that we are excited about NCURA's 52nd Annual Meeting would be a terrific understatement! The myriad bits and pieces ­ wrapping up the program, double-checking times, speakers, and evaluators, working on special events, food, registration, committee meeting times, the new member breakfast, and receptions and more receptions ­ are coming together. We have found that the meeting itself is reflective of our theme: It is truly a confluence of collaboration and creation on the part of many individuals. Yet we might well have called the meeting theme,"At the Confluence of Creation, Collaboration, and Change." Our world in research administration is one of change. Surely ours is among the most nimble of professions. And while our meeting this year also reflects a few changes, what is not changing is our sense of community.The connections we build with each other is one of the greatest perks of being an NCURA member.These connections occur in different ways: with colleagues who share their tried-and-true solutions; with our federal partners; and through the personal friendships that develop. AM52 will follow tradition and provide many opportunities for these connections.

REGIONAL REUNIONS

In recognition of the vital role our regions play in the NCURA community, time has been scheduled on Monday after lunch for regional reunions.This format will give the regions a scheduled opportunity to connect with new members and discuss regional matters. Members can expect to be updated on regional initiatives, introduce and welcome new members, and engage the regional membership in conversation about strategic plans, volunteer initiatives, etc.Your regions are there for you, so meet for dessert, and in between the introductions and business, chat about how your regional cheer and mascot were better than all of the others.

DINNER GROUPS

The ever-popular dinner groups will meet on Monday evening.The NCURA National Office always has a great selection of restaurants from which to choose.The difficulty is making a decision! Menus will be posted early with the sign-up sheets. Most of the restaurants are within a short walking distance, and it is another opportunity to connect with your colleagues and spend some time together while sampling the fare Washington has to offer.

SOUL SOURCE AND THE NO-COST EXTENSIONS FAREWELL TOUR

Per tradition, join us on Tuesday night for the 21st anniversary of NCURA's own house band, Soul Source and the No-cost Extensions. Come rock to "Got Your F&A Right Here!" as well more traditional rock and roll favorites. Many of us have grown up as research administrators listening and dancing to this group over the last 20 years. Sadly, as all good things must come to an end, this will be Soul Source's Farewell Tour. Join us as we thank Steve Smartt and these talented colleagues and friends for their dedication to our entertainment these last two decades, and wish them the best.

WELCOME HOME TO THE NEW HILTON

We return home to the beautifully-renovated Hilton Washington with wonderful changes in our gathering space.The small conference rooms have been reconfigured and now have state-of-the art technology and audiovisual capabilities. The exhibit space has doubled. The pool area has been relocated and totally refurbished. There is a Starbucks in the lobby area and an elegant new bar in the lobby next to the Capital Café, which has also been refurbished and renamed The District Line. All 1,070 guest rooms have been updated. One change that has generated considerable buzz, Ladies, is that there are now 79 bathroom stalls near the meeting areas!

NCURA TAILGATE REUNION KICK OFF

The annual meeting has always begun with a formal banquet on Sunday night, but AM52 will kick off a bit differently. With much input from the regions, we will gather in the ballroom for the NCURA Tailgate Reunion! We promise an evening of fun and lots of opportunities to mingle. Dress casually and wear your school colors. This event will be an ideal opportunity to connect with old friends and make new ones in an inclusive, relaxed, and enjoyable forum. We will gather by region in the ballroom and, in addition to a few surprises up our collective sleeve, your region's leadership is hard at work preparing for the regional cheer and mascot competitions. After the tailgate, wander over to the coffee house for some good old acoustic memories with NCURA's own Grateful Deadlines.

See you there!

We know that you, too, are finalizing your plans. It isn't very far off!

Judy L. Fredenberg

Judy L. Fredenberg, The University of Montana

Diane Barrett

Diane Barrett, University of Wisconsin-Madison

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

We are very excited about our keynote speaker this year. Daniel Pink is the author of the book Drive:The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. In this time of incredible budget constraints, Pink addresses how to use rewards ­ and how not to use them ­ to improve performance. Daniel Pink is entertaining and will share fascinating information that will change the way you think about your work and maybe your life.

Craig A. Reynolds

Craig A. Reynolds, University of Michigan ­ Ann Arbor

3

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

GENERAL INFORMATION

CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NCURA is accredited by the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. This program is administered by the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) to sponsor and award Continuing Professional Education (CPEs) to accounting professionals. Certified Public Accountants will need to complete a CPE credit slip for each session you attend in order to receive CPE credits. CPE credit slips are available at the NCURA Desk located on the Terrace level. Completed CPE Slips must be deposited in the CPE box located at the NCURA Desk. In accordance with the standards of the National Registry of CPE Sponsors, 50 minutes equals 1 CPE. Depending on the sessions and workshops you choose to attend a maximum of 29.5 CPE credits can be issued for NCURA's 52nd Annual Meeting. Fields of study available include Specialized Knowledge and Applications (S), Management (M) and Professional Development (P).

OVERVIEW OF CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Concurrent sessions are geared to a specific level of expertise: BASIC assumes some basic, fundamental research administration knowledge. INTERMEDIATE assumes basic knowledge and the sessions introduce and develop topics that exceed basic knowledge. Sessions focus on building grant and contract competency. ADVANCED assumes mastery of the subject and the session focuses on indepth knowledge or a broader range of topics. Sessions focus on mastering more difficult and complex scenarios. SENIOR AND SENIOR FORUM assumes that the member has policy level responsibility. OVERVIEW provides a general review of a subject area from a broader perspective. UPDATE provides a general review of new developments.

REGISTRATION

Registration is available at www.ncura.edu and is available to any individual engaged in the administration of sponsored programs in a college, university, or teaching hospital. Please Note: Learning objectives for each session will be noted in the conference program. Please consult the session descriptions for program level details.The only prerequisite for meeting attendance is current involvement in university sponsored research programs.There is no advanced preparation required to attend sessions.This conference is a "group-live" offering. For information regarding administrative policies such as complaint resolution and refund, please contact our office at 202-466-3894. National Council of University Research Administrators is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be addressed to: National Registry of CPE Sponsors 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 700 Nashville,TN, 37219-2417 Telephone 615-880-4200 Website: www.nasba.org Solution Discussions will not be eligible for CPE Credits.

OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP PROGRAM LEVELS

The program levels below are designed to assist attendees in determining the appropriate workshop based on your experience level: BASIC assumes basic, fundamental research administration knowledge but cannot assume there is knowledge of course content. INTERMEDIATE assumes basic knowledge and should introduce and develop topics that exceed basic knowledge. Sessions focus on building grant and contract competency. ADVANCED assumes mastery of the subject and should focus on indepth knowledge or a broader range of topics. Sessions should focus on mastering more difficult and complex scenarios. OVERVIEW provides a general review of a subject area from a broader perspective. UPDATE provides a general review of new developments.

4

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6 7

WORKSHOPS SCHEDULE-AT-A-GLANCE

14

Saturday, October 30, 2010

4:00 ­ 7:00 pm ON-SITE SERVICES AND REGISTRATION DESK OPEN 4:00 ­ 7:00 pm NCURA HOSPITALITY BOOTH OPEN 7:00 ­ 8:00 pm NIGHT OF NETWORKING RECEPTION

12:00 ­ 1:15 pm LUNCHEON AND PRESENTATION OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD RECIPIENTS AND JOSEPH CARRABINO AWARD 1:30 ­ 2:30 pm REGIONAL REUNIONS 2:30 ­ 2:45 pm REFRESHMENT BREAK 2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 3:45- 4:00 pm REFRESHMENT BREAK 4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 6:00 ­ 6:30 pm LDI GRADUATES AND ALUMNI RECEPTION 6:00 pm MONDAY EVENING DINNER GROUPS 6:30 ­ 8:30 pm DINNER WITH ANDRE COTE 9:00 pm REGIONAL HOSPITALITY SUITES OPEN

51 55 57

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 7:00 ­ 11:30 pm SOUL SOURCE AND THE NO-COST EXTENSIONS, FAREWELL TOUR 9:00 pm REGIONAL HOSPITALITY SUITES OPEN

14

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

58

7:30 am ­ Noon COMMUTER LOUNGE 7:30 am ­ Noon ONSITE SERVICES DESK OPEN 7:30 ­ 8:30 am ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING BREAKFAST 8:30 ­ 10:00 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 10:00 ­ 10:30 am REFRESHMENT BREAK 10:30 am ­ Noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 12:00 Noon ADJOURNMENT

Sunday, October 31, 2010

7

7:30 am ­ 5:00 pm ON-SITE SERVICES AND REGISTRATION DESK OPEN 8:00 am ­ 5:00 pm HOSPITALITY BOOTH OPEN 8:30 am ­ 4:00 pm WORKSHOPS 2010 (Pre-registration and additional fee required) Noon ­ 1:00 pm WORKSHOP LUNCHEON FOR WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS, FACULTY AND EVALUATORS AM, PM, AND FULL DAY SESSION PARTICIPANTS 7:00 ­ 9:00 pm TAILGATE REUNION 8:30 GRATEFUL DEADLINES AT THE NCURA COFFEE HOUSE 9:00 pm REGIONAL HOSPITALITY SUITES OPEN

14 18 20

20 23 25

58 62 64

64 68

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

26

6:15 ­ 7:15 am NCURA FITNESS 7:30 ­ 8:30 am CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST 7:30 ­ 8:30 am OPEN NEIGHBORHOOD ROUNDTABLES 7:30 am ­ 5:00 pm ON-SITE SERVICES AND REGISTRATION DESK OPEN EXPOSITION 2010 AND CYBER CAFÉ COMMUTER LOUNGE 8:30 ­ 10:00 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 10:00 ­ 10:30 am REFRESHMENT BREAK 10:30 am ­ Noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 12:00 ­ 1:00 pm LUNCHEON AND PRESENTATION OF REGIONAL TRAVEL AWARD AND CATHERINE CORE TRAVEL AWARD RECIPIENTS 1:15 ­ 2:30 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 2:30 ­ 2:45 pm REFRESHMENT BREAK 2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS 3:45 ­ 4:00 pm REFRESHMENT BREAK

WORKSHOPS AND SENIOR FORUMS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

71

8:30 am ­ 4:30 pm FULL DAY WORKSHOPS (Pre-registration and additional fee required) 8:30 am ­ Noon MORNING WORKSHOPS (Pre-registration and additional fee required) 1:00 ­ 4:30 pm AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS (Pre-registration and additional fee required)

Monday, November 1, 2010

7

6:15 ­ 7:15 am NCURA FITNESS 7:30 ­ 8:15 am CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST 7:30 ­ 8:15 am OPEN NEIGHBORHOOD ROUNDTABLES 7:00 am ­ 5:00 pm ON-SITE SERVICES AND REGISTRATION DESK OPEN EXPOSITION 2010 AND CYBER CAFÉ COMMUTER LOUNGE 7:30 am ­ 5:00 pm HOSPITALITY BOOTH OPEN 8:30 ­ 10:00 am 2010 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (LDI) GRADUATION OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION AWARD BEST SELLING AUTHOR, DANIEL PINK, ANNUAL MEETING KEYNOTE ADDRESS 10:00 ­ 10:30 am REFRESHMENT BREAK 10:30 am ­ 12:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

72

77

26 30 32

Monday, November 1, 2010

84

2:45 ­ 5:00 pm SENIOR FORUMS (Pre-registration required and no additional fee)

33 36 38

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

85

8:30 am ­ Noon SENIOR FORUMS (Pre-registration required and no additional fee) 1:15 ­ 5:00 pm SENIOR FORUMS (Pre-registration required and no additional fee)

86

8 11

38 42 44

Thursday, November 4, 2010

83 84 87 88

8:30 am ­ 4:30 pm NIH WORKSHOP NSF WORKSHOP NCURA REGIONS/REGIONAL OFFICERS NCURA LEADERSHIP

45 49 51

5

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

WORKSHOPS and Senior Forums | Schedule at a Glance

Workshop and Senior Forum information is located on pages 71-86.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

7:30 am ­ 5:00 pm

ON-SITE SERVICE DESK OPEN NCURA E-CHECK IN

WS #22: Managing Individual and Institutional Conflicts of Interest WS #23: Subrecipient Monitoring WS #24: Beyond the Basics: BIS & OFAC Licensing WS #25: Preparing for Audits: Guidance for Central Office and

Departments

8:30 am ­ 4:30 pm

FULL DAY WORKSHOPS

WS #1: WS #2: WS #3: WS #4: WS #5:

Pre-award Basics Post-award Basics Departmental Administration Basics Introduction to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Troublesome Terms from Non-Profits, Foundations and Industry: Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place MORNING WORKSHOPS

WS #26:

Thinking Like a Grant Reviewer

WS #27: FAR and Federal Contracting WS #28: Reviewing and Negotiating MTAs, NDAs,

CRADAs, and OTAs MOUs, IPAs,

WS #29: Complex Issues in International Research Contracting WS #30: PUI and Minority Serving Institutions: Issues and

Strategies

WS #31: Developing Training Programs: Multi-Modal Delivery and

8:30 am ­ Noon Assessment

WS #6: WS #7: WS #8: WS #9: WS #10: WS #11: WS #12: WS #13:

Compliance Issues for Pre-award Administrators Export Controls: Regulatory Overview & Basic Concepts Cost Sharing on Sponsored Projects: Why No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Risk Assessment:Theory to Practice Working with the ITAR:A Hands-on Approach to State Department Export License Applications and Requests Financial Compliance Proposal Development to NIH Service Centers: How to Open and Operate ­ Legally! A-133

WS #32: Clinical Trials: Practical Solutions for Complex Problems WS #33: Negotiation Skills for Research Administrators WS #34: Effort Reporting and Management Thursday, November 4, 2010

8:30 am ­ 4:30 pm FULL DAY WORKSHOPS

WS #35: NIH Day WS #36: NSF Day Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 5:00 pm SENIOR FORUMS

WS #14: Advanced Issues in A-21,A-122,A-110 and

Under Federal Grants and Contracts

WS #15: Rights in Technical Data and Software and Data Policies WS #16: Technology Transfer, Start Ups & Industry Collaborations WS #17: Manage Successfully: Office Leadership in Research

Administration

SF #1: SF #2:

Economic Development Issues Truth and/or Consequences in Human Subjects Research Compliance

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 am ­ Noon SENIOR FORUMS

WS #18: Developing a Good Idea and Good Grantsmanship WS #19: Subawards - Beyond the Basics

1:00 ­ 4:30 pm AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS

SF #3: SF #4:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Where Are We Headed? Being a Good Boss in Tough Economic Times SENIOR FORUMS

WS #20: Developing An Effective Responsible Conduct

of Research (RCR) Training Program 1:15 ­ 5:00 pm

WS #21: Export Control Reviews at the Proposal and

Award Stages

SF #5:

Managing Change in Sponsored Programs

6

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Saturday, October 30, 2010

4:00 ­ 7:00 pm

ON-SITE SERVICES AND REGISTRATION DESK OPEN

9:00 pm

REGIONAL HOSPITALITY SUITES OPEN

Monday, November 1, 2010

6:15 ­ 7:15 am

NCURA FITNESS

4:00 ­ 7:00 pm

NCURA HOSPITALITY BOOTH OPEN The Hospitality Booth is a great opportunity to work with your colleagues to answer questions and provide information to meeting attendees who may be asking about, for example, the differences between concurrent sessions, solution discussions; advice about what session might be best for me; directions to specific hotel meeting rooms; information on area restaurants; and more. Hospitality Booth volunteers will have a Volunteer Handbook of information available at the booth for their use and reference. NCURA staff also will be available to assist in providing general Information.

7:30 ­ 8:15 am

CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST

7:30 ­ 8:15 am

OPEN NEIGHBORHOOD ROUNDTABLES

7:00 am ­ 5:00 pm

ON-SITE SERVICES AND REGISTRATION DESK OPEN EXPOSITION 2010 AND CYBER CAFÉ COMMUTER LOUNGE

7:00 ­ 8:00 pm

NIGHT OF NETWORKING RECEPTION

7:30 am ­ 5:00 pm

HOSPITALITY BOOTH OPEN

Sunday, October 31, 2010

7:30 am ­ 5:00 pm

ON-SITE SERVICES AND REGISTRATION DESK OPEN

8:30 ­ 10:00 am

2010 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (LDI) GRADUATION OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT IN RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION AWARD BEST SELLING AUTHOR, DANIEL PINK,ANNUAL MEETING KEYNOTE ADDRESS Daniel Pink is the author of the book Drive:The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Mr. Pink uses 40 years of behavioral science to overturn the conventional wisdom about human motivation and offers a more effective path to high performance. In this time of incredible budget constraints, Mr. Pink addresses how to use rewards ­ and how not to use them ­ to improve performance. Daniel Pink is entertaining and the fascinating information he shares will change the way you think about your work, and maybe even your life.

8:00 am ­ 5:00 pm

HOSPITALITY BOOTH OPEN

8:00 am ­ 5:00 pm

WORKSHOPS (Pre-registration and additional fee required)

Noon ­ 1:00 pm

WORKSHOP LUNCHEON FOR WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS, FACULTY AND EVALUATORS AM, PM,AND FULL DAY SESSION PARTICIPANTS

7:00 ­ 9:00 pm

TAILGATE REUNION Welcome to the NCURA Tailgate Reunion! In an effort to begin our meeting with a strong sense of collegiality and community, the annual banquet is replaced by our first NCURA Tailgate Reunion! Come hungry to meet and mingle, while enjoying a variety of exceptional "tailgate" food. Plan to dress casually and wear your school colors.This event will be an ideal opportunity to reconnect with old friends and make new ones in an inclusive, relaxed, and enjoyable forum. Look for your Program Committee in their football finery. More details will be forthcoming.

10:00 ­ 10:30 am

REFRESHMENT BREAK

8:30 pm

GRATEFUL DEADLINES AT THE NCURA COFFEE HOUSE Gather with colleagues after the tailgate and sing along with NCURA's own Grateful Deadlines as they unplug and perform an eclectic mix of acoustic favorites.

7

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

10:30 am ­ noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Learning Objectives: · Participants will become familiar with patient care costs and how an individual should analyze the budget knowing. Medicare/Medicaid policies and federal law · Participants will learn the differences between a clinical trial budget and a standard research budget. · Participants will gain insight into the budget negotiations so that your university is in compliance with the multiple rules and regulations out there. Ellen Datena*, Acting Executive Director,The Center for Clinical Trials, University of Maryland School of Medicine, University of Maryland Baltimore Hot Topics in Research Compliance Program Level: Advanced Although it does not appear anywhere in the name of the National Council of University Research Administrators or in the titles of most of its members, compliance is a central, on-going, and critical component of what we are all about. This forum provides an opportunity for senior members of the profession to engage in a highly interactive discussion on some of the current challenges in research compliance. While the precise list of compliance topics will depend on just what's happening in our world on November 1, 2010, we can be highly confident that they will include some or all of the following: conflict of interest; export controls; responsible conduct of research; protection of human research subjects; cost transfers; PI effort commitments; e-Verify; and, when all else fails, the Fly America Act. Cultivating the Departmental and Central Relationship: Tips to Promote Strong Working Relationships Among Departmental, School and Central Administrators Program Level: Intermediate This session will explore the benefits, challenges and delicate balance necessary for a successful department and central collaboration. It will cover the day-to-day interactions and process improvements that foster and build successful long term cross functional teams and relationships.We will also focus on strategic goals and concepts that both parties can work towards together in areas such as compliance management, customer service metrics and financial reporting. Learning Objectives: · Participants will be aware of the major research compliance issues facing colleges and universities today. · Participants will be acquainted with the ways in which some leading institutions are addressing research compliance issues. · Participants will be able to identify the greatest compliance risks for their institution. Prerequisites: Participants should have thorough knowledge of, and experience with, research compliance issues at their institution. Richard P. Seligman*, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, California Institute of Technology; Marti L. Dunne, Associate Vice Provost for Research Compliance and Administration, New York University Clinical Trials: Budget Development with Billing Analysis and Negotiations Program Level: Basic Clinical Compliance Aren't clinical trials only about patient care costs? Why do I need a budget, and, how is it developed? Who should be negotiating these budgets and what is the process in analyzing a clinical trial budget over a regular grant budget?

Roseann L. Luongo*, Sponsored Programs Officer and Manager, Harvard University; Kimberly A. Hesse, Associate Director of Finance, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health; Kathleen Sullivan, Senior International Grant Manager, Harvard School of Public Health; Elizabeth Lennox, Director of Administration, Harvard School of Public Health

8

Departmental

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

10:30 am ­ noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will hear first-hand accounts on maximizing the role of the international research administrator. · Participants will gain a greater appreciation of the challenges successful research administrators must overcome on international projects. Pre-Requisites: Familarity with administering international projects may assist in understanding the content of the sesssion but should not preclude anyone from participating. David Richardson*, Associate Vice President for Research, Pennsylvania State University; Martin Kirk, Director, Office of Research Services,The University of British Columbia; José Mário Leite, FUNDAÇÃO CALOUSTE GULBENKIAN, Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an historical understanding of Lincoln and the issue of emancipation and gain insight into the process of problem-solving. · Participants will learn essential elements of leadership. · Participants will gain a better understanding of successful management of research administration. Stephen L. Hansen*, Associate Provost for Research and Dean, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Developing International Projects:The Role of the Research Administrator Program Level: Advanced While science itself is increasingly global with its own universal language and standards, the role of the research administrator in developing international projects remains somewhat inconsistent and sometimes inconclusive. In order to administer international projects, research administrators have to manage multiple differences including culture, currency, and compliance concerns. To be successful, experience combined with strong diplomatic skills count. Join this session to hear from a global panel discuss the role of the research administrator in managing international projects.

General General

"With Malice Toward None:" Abraham Lincoln and the Art of Leadership in Research Administration Program Level: Overview What can research administrators learn from the leadership of Abraham Lincoln? Using the analogy of how Lincoln managed the complex issue of emancipation, this session will explore the characteristics that could serve us in the management of research administration. More specifically, by discussing Lincoln's successes and failures, we can gain a better understanding of how to address our own complex and difficult issues. Improving Research Administration Effectiveness: Institutional Trends, Practices, Directions Program Level: Senior Are you looking for a session packed with ideas on how to improve your operation's effectiveness? Would you like to learn about common themes and trends that impede research administrators and have been identified at institutions of all types: research, predominantly undergraduate, emerging research, and medical? Is your operation at risk due to lack of staffing, insufficient senior administrator understanding, or fussing between offices? For the first time, peer reviewers will share with the NCURA membership trends and practices learned from dozens of peer reviews conducted through the NCURA Peer Review Program.The peer review process brings experienced research administrators into your operation in order to provide feedback on effectiveness, best practices, and recommendations for future decisions.This collaborative process between the peer reviewers and institutional stakeholders has a goal to assist operations, gain insights on ways to improve performance and minimize risk. What will you take away? This session will explore common themes identified at institutions that may be easily addressed. Presenters will share successful strategies utilized by institutions and identify some best practices.You will gain insights about these trends and best practices in order to help assess your own operation.While the reviewers will not disclose institutional names due to confidentiality, they will share with the membership tips and insights that will benefit any office. Come learn about these themes and recommendations and use them for your own program improvement!

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of common themes that disrupt operational effectiveness and strategies to address those themes. · Participants will gain insight on the importance of addressing operational issues. · Participants will delve into the different layers of stakeholders and perspectives that impact your operation's effectiveness. Prerequisites: Participants should have a working knowledge of sponsored programs and an interest in improving their operations through assessing other models and approaches. Peggy S. Lowry*, Peer Review Coordinator, National Council of University Research Administrators

General

* Lead Presenter

9

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

10:30 am ­ noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objective: Participants will learn some common guidelines, tips, tricks and other skills that you can employ to understand the "fine print" contained in most, if not all, guidelines, awards and policies within Research Administration. Samuel Gannon*, Manager, Education & Training,Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Paige Robinson, Administrative officer, Pharmacology Department,Vanderbilt University Medical Center Cynthia Hope*, Assistant Vice President, Office for Research,The University of Alabama; Denise J. Clark, Assistant Vice President for Research Administration and Advancement, University of Maryland College Park; Marianne R.Woods, Senior Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Texas at San Antonio Reading and Understanding Guidelines and Policies Program Level: Basic Have you ever been frustrated by sponsor guidelines or policies? Making sense of these dense documents is actually not an art, but a learned skill-especially in knowing what to look for. General Human Capital

Leadership Development for Research Administrators: It Won't be This Way When I'm in Charge Program Level: Overview Aspiring to move up in your organization's hierarchy? Whether you are hoping to be recognized as management material or to climb to the next level of management, it is important to understanding what senior administrators look for when hiring, or promoting, mid-level managers. This session will include advice from and discussion with presenters who have been on both ends of the management selection process (and the country). Topics will include appropriate ways to get recognized, working with the politics and culture of your organization and adaptability (management's equivalent to real estate's "location"). Bring your stories and questions and be prepared to discuss the facts of life in management. Cost Transfers Program Level: Intermediate Post-award This session will serve as an overview of the regulations and audit findings surrounding cost transfers.We will have a discussion of strategies to minimize cost transfers and perform cost transfers compliantly.

Learning Objectives: · · · · What are the relevant regulations around cost transfers? What can be learned from recent audits? What are the strategies for minimizing cost transfers? What documentation should be maintained to support cost transfers?

Lynn Kingsley*, Director, Cost Analysis and Studies, University of Maryland Baltimore Basic Proposal Development Program Level: Basic Proposal development is one of the key functions of any preaward office.While the role of a research administrator is not to serve as a content expert, there are many ways that we can assist our faculty in producing more effective proposals.These include providing professional development programs for proposal preparation and submission, assisting with preparing budgets, and coordinating activities required for submission of a successful proposal.This session will examine successful programs and strategies for proposal development from the perspectives of central administration and departmental administration at large research institutions, and from predominantly undergraduate institutions. Learning Objectives: · Participants will understand the essential functions of a pre- award office in proposal development. · Participants will gain insights into successful faculty development programs. · Participants will learn ways to improve the range, quality and level of services provided to faculty in the proposal development process. Jerry Pogatshnik*, Dean of the Graduate School & Associate Vice President for Research, Eastern Kentucky University; Robert P. Lowman, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Lajauna Ellis, Program Manager, School of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

10

Pre-award

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

10:30 am ­ noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Solution Discussion Leader: Beth Martell, Director, Office of Clinical Research, University of Chicago Budgets and Medicare and the Problems Between the Two Ensuring compliant research billing requires good coordination. This solution discussion will explore how to prepare to budget for clinical trials and discuss common billing pit falls. This will include topics such as Medicare coverage analysis, Medicare transmittals related to research billing, research device billing and other related topics. SBIRs, STTRs & Conflict of Interest We see more and more faculty with the entrepreneurial spirit, many small companies are springing up in our communities, and universities (both public and private) are expected to be economic drivers. All these factors contribute to the perfect storm that lead to more collaborations in Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer Research (STTR) awards. While these funding mechanisms offer unique opportunities for university researchers and small business owners to work together, they also may present us with conflict of interest issues that can threaten the success of these ventures.This solution discussion will explore ways to successfully reduce, eliminate or manage the inevitable conflicts of interest that arise from SBIR/STTR projects. Challenges Facing the Departmental Administrator Working Within the Clinical Research Environment Departmental Research Administrators (DRAs) working within the clinical research enterprise are encumbered by a fragmented infrastructure, lack of study participants, and dwindling funding. This solution discussion will explore resources available to the departmental administrator, including developing relationships with your institutional regulatory committees, streamlining patient consent, addressing conflicts of interest ahead of time, providing comprehensive information to your investigators, as well as specific opportunites regarding funding, mentoring, and information tracking. University/Industry Partnership A nation's economic competitiveness depends greatly upon its ability to put the best minds and most creative people together to innovate and solve problems. Scientists and engineers from university and industry sectors bring different backgrounds, skills, and missions together that can frequently spark discovery and invention. But anyone who has tried to put these collaborations together know that each one presents difficult and different challenges.The very thing that can generate innovation is sometimes the very thing that keeps the parties from truly working together.This session will explore the nature and roles of each sector and how they might work better together. By the way, it isn't just about contractual language!

Clinical

Solution Discussion Leader: Toni Shaklee, Assistant Vice President for Research, Oklahoma State University

Compliance

Solution Discussion Leader: Christine P. Pacheco, Senior Contract & Grant Administrator, University of New Mexico

Departmental

Solution Discussion Leader: Kathy Young, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs and Research, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign

Federal

* Lead Presenter

11

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

10:30 am ­ noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

well positioned as a platform to support research, technical assistance, and capacity building that is responsive to long-standing and contemporary science and management priorities. This solution discussion will provide an overview of the CESU Network (past, present, and future) and provide opportunities for research administrators and CESU directors to share experiences, discuss current trends, and explore new possibilities for continued collaboration with federal agencies and other partners through this unique program. Possible discussion topics may include:What collaborative opportunities are already being realized through existing CESUs? What opportunities exist to develop partnerships across CESUs? What opportunities exist for engaging students in applied projects? What administrative and political challenges exist for effective collaboration? What role should state/federal agencies, multinational bodies, NGOs, academia, and industry play to foster/facilitate broader collaboration? Solution Discussion Leader: Thomas E. Fish, Program Administrator, University of Maine Maintaining Strong Partnerships for Collaborative Science, Technical Assistance, and Education:The Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units Network Innovative approaches that transcend disciplinary and institutional boundaries are essential for solving persistent and emerging complex problems facing the sustainability of our natural and cultural landscapes. Now in its eleventh year, the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) Network is a national consortium of federal agencies, academic institutions, state and tribal governments, conservation organizations, and other partners working together to support agency mission-based science and informed public trust resource stewardship. Each CESU brings together scientists, resource managers, students, and other conservation professionals from across the biological, physical, social, cultural, and engineering fields (from anthropology to zoology) to conduct collaborative applied projects that address natural and cultural heritage resource issues at multiple scales and in an ecosystem context. With participation from 13 federal agencies, dozens of nongovernmental organizations, and more than 200 academic institutions, the CESU Network is Civilized Skills for an Uncivil Workplace Is your day at the office a colleagial and civil work environment, or more like a combination of mud wrestling and roller derby? For the most part, do you deal with polite and professional adults, or more often with "difficult" people? Has multi-tasking and the pressures of deadlines, combined with multiple modes of communication, made courtesy and civility a forgotten habit? This session will offer some time-tested advice and anecdotes on how to play well with others while being more productive in a time of increasing regulation, compliance, social networking and too many Smartphones. Leadership Development for Research Administrators: The Mentoring Process: Following to Succeed and Lead This highly interactive presentation will facilitate discussion about the concept of mentoring as well as explore and explain various perspectives of mentoring, i.e., what it is, its role and importance in career and leadership development; how to mentor, how to benefit from the experience; and examine the elements of a successful program. Additionally, lessons learned and experiences will be shared by representatives from Region VI's LEAD Me (Mentorship) Program and related opportunities. Lastly, attendees will learn how to assess their suitability to successfully participate in mentorship experiences, as a mentor and/or mentee.

Federal

Human Capital

Solution Discussion Leaders: Steven H. Smartt, Associate Dean, Graduate School And Assistant Provost For Research,Vanderbilt University; Midge Gardner, Executive Assistant, Office of Alumni, Development and Public Affairs, Georgetown Law Center, Georgetown University

Solution Discussion Leaders: Linda W. Patton, Director, Office of Grants and Contracts, California State University Fullerton; Rosemary Madnick, Assistant Vice President, Research Administration, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute; Derick Jones, Financial Manager,The Medical Genetics Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; Cecelia Manoochehri, Fiscal Manager, Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology

12

Human Capital

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

10:30 am ­ noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leader: David J. Mayo, Director of Sponsored Research, California Institute of Technology Developing and Sustaining International Research Collaborations Developing and maintaining international relationships in support of research collaborations can be challenging, given the often misunderstood cultural, business and legal differences between the parties. This discussion session will explore some of the issues we face in this growing area of activity, as well as the solutions our institutions have come up with. Please join us with your questions (and solutions)! Handling Fixed Price Agreements ­ What Works Best? Oven Mitts or Tweezers? What does a department and even a university need to know about the risks associated with fixed price agreements? Join this lively discussion regarding the pros and cons of fixed price agreements as participants bring real life experiences to the table. Pre-Award for Post-Award ­ the Hot Synch that Pays Dividends Becoming familiar with the multi-faceted and detailed oriented tasks intrinsic to research administration will be beneficial to anyone working in the field. This will be useful to those who are more experienced and familiar with the realm of Post-Award duties, but seek a better understanding of Pre-Award tasks and responsibilities. The discussion will emphasize interpersonal and organizational communication strategies as well as the importance of crosstraining to better synchronize pre-award and post-award transactions and reduce errors. Collaboration and solution sharing is the expectation for participants. Bring your success stories! Current Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUI) Topics of Interest PUI's are never known to be shy about talking about current or emerging topics that are posing concerns for us. This session will be a positive discussion about topics that are current and sharing solutions others have discovered. ARRA? Effort Reporting? Cost Sharing? Supplemental Pay? What's on the researchadm-l this month? You participate in helping others through list serves, now you can do it face to face. Come with a current topic and ask your PUI support group for solutions. If you're one of those "miracle" people who are up to date on all the emerging topics, still attend and contribute. This will be an upbeat, sharing session to discuss solutions to current problems. Come with a positive attitude and ready to share solutions.

International

Pre-award

Solution Discussion Leaders: Joseph D. Sullivan, Manager, Pre-award Systems and Administration, Carnegie Mellon University; Cheryl K. Williams, Assistant Director, Office of Research & Project Administration, University of Rochester

Post-award

Learning Objectives: · Participants will review the transactions and tasks involved on the pre-award side of research administration. · Participants will seek to find common understanding of the responsibilities and requirements for pre-award to further their skills and knowledge of research administration overall. Solution Discussion Leader: Alice M. Doyle, Grants Manager, Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology; Heather M. Offhaus, Director, Medical School Grant Review & Analysis, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

Solution Discussion Leader: Pam B.Whitlock, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, University of North Carolina at Wilmington (retired)

Senior

* Lead Presenter

13

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

12:00 ­ 1:15 pm LUNCHEON AND PRESENTATION OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD RECIPIENTS AND JOSEPH CARRABINO AWARD

1:30 ­ 2:30 pm REGIONAL REUNIONS

Our regions play a vital role, forming the backbone of the NCURA community.These regional reunions are a time for all members of each region to connect with each other, greet newcomers, and discuss regional matters. Members can expect new members to be introduced and welcomed, to be updated on regional initiatives, and engage the regional membership in conversation about strategic plans, volunteer initiatives, etc. Meet for dessert following lunch on Monday to learn about regional happenings.

2:30 ­ 2:45 pm REFRESHMENT BREAK

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Learning Objectives: The participant will become familiar with AAHRPP and how it relates to Clinical and human research; and gain insight into how one should review your organizations compliance policies within your university. Susan Buskirk*, Executive Director, Human Research Protection; Marjorie A. Speers, President and CEO, AAHRPP

Compliance in Clinical Trials: What You Need to Know about AAHRPP and Other Areas of Compliance Program Level: Intermediate/Senior What is AAHRPP and how does it affect you and your organization? This session will provide you with an insight into the AAHRPP organization and its mission. You will also be provided with an understanding of how it can affect you within the university research/clinical arena. The presenters will also provide other areas of compliance that are needed in clinical research administration. Internal Audits Role in Evaluating Compliance and Fostering Responsible Conduct Program Level: Intermediate Universities use a variety of methods for promoting integrity and fostering responsible conduct. They establish organizational components to comply with laws and regulations imposed by the external environment; they offer educational programs to teach the principles of responsible conduct; they implement policies and procedures that describe the expected practices and establish criteria for rewards and recognition; and they develop processes to evaluate and enforce institutional behavior. The internal audit function is one of the organizational components that plays a key role in this endeavor. In this session you will hear from a panel of Chief Audit Executives about the critical role they have in assisting members of the organization in the effective discharge of responsibilities as they evaluate compliance and foster responsible conduct. Clinical

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn of a variety of approaches, programs, activities that can be integrated across the various levels of the organization in order to support a culture of compliance and integrity and foster responsible conduct by all. · Participants will leave this session wanting to be proactive business partners with their Internal Audit team. · Participants will gain insights into how to partner with Internal Audit to upgrade business practices and compliance mechanisms to ensure strong stewardship and accountability at all levels of the organization. Prerequisites: Participants should have interest in becoming an active participant in advancing a culture of compliance and responsible conduct within their institution. Mary Lee Brown*, Associate Vice President Audit, Compliance and Privacy, University of Pennsylvania and Health System; Frank Bossle, Executive Director of the Office of Hopkins Internal Audit, Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Health System; Mike Somich, Executive Director of the Office Internal Audit, Duke University and Duke University Health System

14

Compliance

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: Participants will learn about different models for research administration at the departmental level, and suggested metrics to evaluate DRA performance and balance portfolios. Session leaders will share tools and processes aimed at improving efficiency and compliance. Prerequisite: Participants are expected to have 1+ years of experience in departmental research administration. The session will be geared towards those in managerial roles, however this information may be useful to anyone in a departmental or central roles who are interested in exploring different models of departmental administration. Susan Cassidy Zipkin*, Director, Research Finance Radiology Research, Brigham & Women's Hospital Learning Objectives: · Participants will understand how NSF has implemented this requirement. · Participants will gain insight to how institutions are complying with this requirement. · Participants will learn where to find additional resources for the development of institutional plans for RCR training as well as the monitoring of such activity. Jean I. Feldman*, Head, Policy Office, Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management, National Science Foundation Metrics, Models and Tools for Departmental Research Administrators Program Level: Advanced Departmental Research Administration comes in all shapes and sizes, and there is no one model that fits all. How do you know which one works best for you at your institution? How can you determine if you have enough staff? That your workload is appropriately distributed? How much service do you provide to your PI's? You can't do it all, so what are the essential services that a department administrator must provide? Join us for a lively discussion on what metrics and models are currently being used by successful departmental administrators. We will also share some tools developed by department administrators to promote a proactive approach to research administration. National Science Foundation and the Responsible Conduct of Research Program Level: Update Beginning on January 4, 2010, institutions submitting proposals to NSF were required to certify that a plan is in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research (RCR) to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research. This session will provide an overview of the NSF RCR implementation plan, how institutions are complying with these requirements, and what NSF is doing to provide resources to the community. Operational Effectiveness in an Increasingly Complex and Demanding Working Environment ­ Best Practices Program Level: Overview Demand for more efficient and effective higher education administration and management continues to grow as competition intensifies and resources become more scarce. As a result, research administrators face an increasing number of complex decisions each day involving operational, technical, and workforce-related matters - any of which has the potential to significantly impact operational effectiveness.This session will highlight areas within our changing operational environment where managers can develop best practices that will contribute to more effective resource investments and decision-making. Specific topics to be addressed include: 1) Identifying/growing/retaining/rewarding talented staff (including employee incentives, career tracking) 2) Developing consistent practices for specific HR challenges (high turnover rates, succession planning, military deployments, maternity/paternity leaves), 3) Specific measures to enhance performance and career success 4) Addressing performance deficiencies 5) Effective management of an increasingly diverse research administration workplace ­ diversity in professional backgrounds, experience levels, ethnicity, and work schedules 6) Prioritizing and balancing work product "deliverables". Departmental Federal

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain insight into how to best navigate managerial challenges and job demands in a modern research administration operation. · Participants will learn specific approaches to effectively address operational challenges and/or deficiencies. · Participants will understand essential components of effective workplace HR management and learn where to go for assistance for particular operational challenges. Harlan M. Sands*, Associate Provost for Administration and Finance, University of Alabama at Birmingham

Human Capital

* Lead Presenter

15

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Richard Klavans*, President, SciTech Technologies; Niels Weertman, Director of Product Development, Elsevier; Ashlea Higgs, Product Manager, Elsevier Alternative Methods for Performance Measurement and Identifying Key Strategic Competencies Within a Multidisciplinary Landscape for an Institute Program Level: Intermediate New approaches are needed to evaluate science encouraging collaborations that will aid the advancement of research outcomes. In an increasingly multidisciplinary landscape it is hard to assess who to collaborate with, and how individuals can be encouraged to participate in them.The symposium explores a number of different perspectives on the evaluation of research that will help improve the collaboration between regions, institutions and researchers. NCURA EARMA Fellowship Update Program Level: Intermediate The International Research Management Fellowship Program is a joint initiative between NCURA and EARMA (the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators). The Fellowship Program has two underlying objectives: (i) the training of research managers, and (ii) enabling US and European research collaboration.This program is intended to bridge the `knowledge gap' between the different US and EU funding systems. There is an ever increasing amount of international research collaboration, and this fellowship hopes to create a pool of individuals who will be knowledgeable in the application processes and administrative requirements of both US and European funds. The Program will provide an opportunity for US research administrators to travel to research organizations in Europe and immerse themselves in a program of mutual learning and knowledge exchange. The results of the NCURA and EARMA beta test exchange will be presented. Please join us to hear about the Fellow's and Host institution's experiences. Also, the impact and outcomes will be shared and plans for future implementation will be discussed. Educating Faculty on Intellectual Property Program Level: Intermediate Are you just entering the world of intellectual property for the first time? Do you know what it takes to start up an intellectual property training program for faculty? Do you want to get real life insight on what strategies work well when working with faculty on IP issues? If you answered yes to any of these questions then this concurrent session is for you. Panel members are well versed on all IP issues and will be sharing their insights on the basics of educating the faculty on IP issues. Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn what is needed to educate faculty on IP issues. · Participants will learn successful strategies for educating faculty on IP issues. Prerequisites: Participants will have an interest or responsibility in intellectual property faculty education. Marianne Rinaldo Woods*, Senior Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Texas at San Antonio; Elaine Brock, Senior Associate Director, Division of Research Development and Administration, University of Michigan Learning Objectives: · Participants will acquire a better understanding of the administrative requirement of fellowships with EARMA. · Participants will learn about the beta test and the future of this program. Denise A.Wallen*, Senior Fellow, Research Assistant Professor, University of New Mexico; Kathleen M. Larmett, Executive Director, National Council of University Research Administrators Industry

16

Pre-award

International

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain basic understanding of cost sharing, learn how to identify mandatory, and voluntary committed and uncommitted cost sharing. · Participants will learn how to set up, fund and close out cost sharing. · Participants will understand the impact of cost sharing on the F&A rate and administrative oversight. Urmila Bajaj*, Director of Project Accounting, California Institute of Technology; Patricia A. Hawk, Director, Sponsored Programs, Oregon State University Basics of Cost Sharing Program Level: Basic This session is designed to introduce "cost sharing" to the newcomers in research administration, both departmental and central administrators. Cost sharing can be "required" by program announcements, or, offered by principal investigators knowingly or unintentionally.The definitions, types and life cycle of cost sharing will be discussed in this session.The presentation will include discussions on how to determine the level of obligation committed by the PI, identify sources to fund the cost sharing, understand the difference between implicit and explicit cost sharing, track cost shared expenditures and close out cost sharing. Conflicts of Interest: An Update - Where We Are and Where (we think) We Are Going Program Level: Advanced This session will examine anticipated changes to the PHS/NIH regulations for Promoting Objectivity in Research. These changes likely will demand that institutions assess and revise their current policies and practices related to managing and reporting financial conflicts of interest. As PHS regulations often are the harbinger of change at other federal agencies, the session also will explore potential implications for other federal agencies.

Post-award

Senior

Learning Objectives: · Participants will be informed on current developments related to regulatory requirements addressing financial conflicts of interests. · Participants will learn and share insights on strategies for responding to these requirements. Prerequisites: Participants should have a knowledge of current conflict of interest regulations. Thomas A. Coggins*, Director, Sponsored Awards Management, University of South Carolina; Carol J. Blum, Director Research Compliance and Administration, Council on Governmental Relations (COGR)

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm

SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Solution Discussion Leader: Carrie O'Neill, Associate General Counsel, Office of the Senior Vice President and General Counsel,The George Washington University; Robert A. Donnally, Director, Regulatory Affairs and Outreach, Office of the Vice President for Research,The George Washington University; Susan B. Kaplan, Senior Counsel, Office of the Senior Vice President and General Counsel,The George Washington University

Noncompliance: Strategies for Avoiding it When Possible and Dealing with it When Necessary Compliance Property This solution discussion will discuss issues we have found over the course of years in how we handle fixed assets and the solution to those issues. These issues can range from;"Okay the auditor is here and the Photon Microscopy equipment is not in the room designated in the Inventory system, in fact the room isn't even there anymore" to a PI is leaving the University and wants to take all of her equipment with her. What is the process? Of course there are many other issues and we welcome you to come discuss and find solutions.

Solution Discussion Leaders: Daniel MacGregor, Executive Director, Financial Accounting Operations,The George Washington University; Ellen Thompson, Fixed Assets Accountant,The George Washington University

Federal

* Lead Presenter

17

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Solution Discussion Leaders: Samuel L. Peterson, Institutional Research Analyst, Office of Research, University of Missouri Publicizing the Research Operation: How to Get the Word Out! Presentation of your institutional data to users has become a major marketing tool, in an increasingly competitive environment. From press releases to Ezines, the attendees will be introduced to the latest developments in the field. Discussions and interaction by participants will be encouraged to ensure a cutting edge awareness of efforts across institutions. External comparison data is an important tool in developing strategies for institutional growth.The major players in this arena will be listed and explained.This discussion group will be targeted toward Research Officers and those that provide them with information. Living in an Extrovert World for the Introvert This solution discussion will discuss a few of the differences in the way introverts and extroverts approach communication. Participation will be encouraged as we explore the Myers Briggs Type Indicator as a tool for understanding ourselves. The group will be encouraged to share ideas and struggles with communication as well as the challenges an introvert must overcome to effectively communicate in an extroverted world. Pathways and Pipelines to NCURA Leadership Individuals new to NCURA may find themselves stumped over how to become more involved in the organization. What are some practical steps to take to .... help at the registration desk? ... present at an NCURA meeting? ... serve on a regional committee? .... become a member of the national Board of Directors? This solution discussion is intended to give insight into some of the routes typically taken by members that lead from newcomer status to progressively greater levels of volunteerism and leadership, and to provide new members with concrete tips for advancing engagement with NCURA at both the regional and national levels. Professional Development for the Research Administrator: How to Stay Fresh and Happy in Your Career Professional growth is the key to happiness and satisfaction for most research administrators. It's what keeps us feeling fresh and invigorated in our careers. However, achieving one's professional development goals can be challenging and often requires a sustained individual effort. How does one shape a fulfilling and gratifying career in research administration? How does one find direction, maintain a positive outlook and reap the rewards of career advancement and recognition? Is career development more or less difficult for research administrators at predominantly undergraduate institutions? Is the current economy a hindrance to professional growth or a unique opportunity for advancement? In this session, the panelists and participants will discuss various ways that individuals can achieve their professional development goals, including strategies for learning, growth and advancement.This session may be most useful for those in mid-level professional positions; however, all participants at any stage of their career are invited to attend.

* Lead Presenter

General

Human Capital

Solution Discussion Leader: Lealie M. Perry, Contracts Associate, Johns Hopkins University

Human Capital

Solution Discussion Leaders: Diane Barrett, Associate Dean of Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Judy Fredenberg, Director, The University of Montana; Craig Reynolds, Chief Administrator, Department of Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan Medical School

Solution Discussion Leaders: Joseph C. McNicholas, Director, Office for Research and Sponsored Projects, Loyola Marymount University; Suzanne M. Rivera, Vice President for Research Administration, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

18

Human Capital

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leaders: Ruth Knoedler, Grant & Contract Specialist, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan; Heather M. Offhaus, Director, Medical School Grant Review & Analysis, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Proposal Punch Lists: Is it Ready to Go to the Sponsor? Research Administrators seem to work feverishly to get a proposal submitted on time. Sometimes it is hard to remember every last T to cross and I to dot. This solution discussion will explore how to develop standard (and non-standard!) items for review and validation before submission -- whether you have ten days or ten minutes! Participants will be provided with sample lists, asked to share their best practices, and walk away with tools to help investigators, their institution, and themselves put the best proposal forward. Gifts vs. Grants:What are the Differences? This solution discussion will focus on the fact the terms "gift" and "grant" are defined differently by research administrators and the audit community, but those outside the university who are asked to provide research support, and sometimes our own faculty, are less aware of the nuanced distinctions, and often use the terms interchangeably. Session participants will spend the hour talking about why some awards made to Universities to support research are classified as gifts and others as grants, as well as some of the problems created when things aren't clear. Effective and Accurate Projections This session will help departmental administrators become more familiar with the internal and external constituents that influence the budget construction including projections, expenditure estimation, and allocation processes. ARRA Experience One Year Later Research administrators have been adapting to The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for over a year, in many cases developing solutions rapidly in response to last-minute federal guidance. But are your institution's implemented solutions optimal, or is there still a chance to fine-tune and improve processes either prior to or in response to ARRA-specific audits? This solution discussion will consider concrete opportunities for ARRA process improvement.

Pre-award

Solution Discussion Leaders: Ann M. Pollack, Assistant Vice Chancellor-Research, University of California-Los Angeles; Lynne Yorita, Audit Manager, University of California-Los Angeles

Post-award

Post-award

Solution Discussion Leaders: Erin E Bailey, Certified Research Administrator and Grant Manager, Buffalo Center for Social Research, University at Buffalo; Randi Wasik, Academic Administrator University of Massachusetts Medical School

Solution Discussion Leader: Susan G. Ross, Director, Evanston Campus, Office for Sponsored Research, Northwestern University

Senior

* Lead Presenter

19

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 5:00 pm

SENIOR FORUMS See pages 84-85 for details. Pre-registration required. No additional fee.

3:45 ­ 4:00 pm

REFRESHMENT BREAK

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain a further understanding of the complexities and common challenges of investigator initiated clinical trial contracts. · Participants will identify strategies and tools for effective feasibility/risk review, contract negotiation, and operational management of investigator initiated clinical trial agreements. · Participants will identify ways to streamline investigator initiated clinical trial agreement negotiations, including how to include clinical investigators/coordinators, financial analysts, regulatory compliance officers, and other key players as resource. Prerequisites: Participants should have previous experience coordinating and negotiating the administrative and risk complexities of investigator initiated clinical trial agreements. Barbara Suchanec*, Director, Clinical Research Contracts, Pennsylvania State University, College of Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center Learning Objectives: · Identify potential areas that may be identified as a risk by your internal audit. · Understand why the audits can be a helpful tool. · Ways to be proactive after an audit without ruffling the feathers of faculty and staff. Pre-requisite: This session is designed for those individuals whose role includes managing multiple facets of a department or operation. Jaynee L.Tolle*, Sr. Grant Administrator, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cincinnati; Tamara Hill, Assistant Director, Grants & Sponsored Programs, University of Louisville

Investigator Initiated Clinical Trial Contracts Program Level: Intermediate Investigator initiated clinical trials present the university research administrator with a complex set of regulations, workflows, risk reviews, financial, and contracting challenges. The session will provide an opportunity for research administrators to further understand the unique characteristics of investigator initiated clinical trials, the roles and responsibilities of the principal players, and the significance of funding sources. Examples of how institutions plan for and successfully manage the feasibility/risk, regulatory, contracts, and operational complexities associated with investigator initiated clinical trials will be reviewed. Negotiation tools, checklists, communication strategies, and more will be presented. Attendees are encouraged to share challenges, questions, and suggestions.

Clinical Departmental

Tips and Tools for Recovery After an Internal Audit in Your Department Program Level: Intermediate How do you recover from a bad internal audit? How do you address audit findings for problems you don't believe exist? What do you need to do to ensure your audit will be positive? This session will discuss case studies of real life experiences of department administrators' journey to addressing issues sited in an internal audit.

Research.gov - Powering Knowledge and Innovation Program Level: Overview Come to the Research.gov session to learn about what Research.gov can offer you and how it can benefit your work! This session features a high-level overview of Research.gov, a researchfocused initiative NSF is leading in partnership with other research agencies. Research.gov provides organizations and researchers with easy access to research-related information and grants management services from multiple federal agencies in one location. Learn about current and upcoming services and tools for the research community, hear updates on NSF and partner agencies, and find out how Research.gov helps alleviate the administrative burden on the research community and increases transparency into federal research spending and outcomes.

* Lead Presenter

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about what Research.gov is, including how it began, current status, and where it's going · Participants will find out more about how Research.gov benefits the research community and you and hear updates on NSF and partner agencies. · Participants will find out about the information, services, and tools currently available through Research.gov and exciting new services coming soon and ask NSF representatives questions and provide feedback on Research.gov, such as, suggestions for new services and enhancements to existing services. Stacie M. Boyd*, Program Analyst, National Science Foundation

20

Federal

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about basic retirement planning and investment planning · Participants will understand the essential components of how to plan for a decent income when retired G. Margaret Griscavage*, Director, Office of Grants and Contracts Administration, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Hank Conway,Senior Consultant, Field Consulting Group, DC Office of TIAA-CREF Retirement, and Investment Strategies for the Newer Investor Planning for Retirement Program Level: Overview This session is intended to promote a greater understanding of how to plan your financial well-being at whatever age you choose to retire. So, this begs the question; when do I want to retire? And also the other question: how much do I need to retire on, and how do I figure that out? The When, the How Much and the How will be discussed in this session, as will why it is paramount that you begin to plan your finances as soon as possible.You will also learn about diversification of assets, investment strategies, and tax deferred annuities. Just new in the work force, or been around a while? - this session plans to have something for everyone. Leadership Development for Research Administrators:What Are You Trying to Say? A Guide to Effective Communication Program Level: Overview Communication is at the heart of every endeavor in research administration. We make dozens of decisions, sometimes automatically, based on our communications with sponsors, faculty, administration, and peers. This session helps us examine those communications and make informed choices about the content and style of the messages we convey and the methods we use to persuade other people to accept our point of view. We will also look at some impediments to communications and the difficulty of making contact in this electronic era. It is clear that our message is greatly impacted by the way we deliver it. This session will engage the audience in a discussion of the fundamental principles of communications systems ­ from email to personal interactions. IP 101 ­ Technology & Industry Alliances Program Level: Basic This session is intended to provide attendees with a solid basic understanding of intellectual property. Participants will learn fundamentals of intellectual property, with specific focus on patents and copyrights.The session will then review standard intellectual property provisions for universities, which will aid in understanding of the purpose behind each section. Some problematic IP provisions in sponsors' drafts of agreements will also be reviewed, dissected, and discussed. Industry Human Capital

Human Capital

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn the principles of good communication. · Participants will gain an understanding of how the delivery system effects the message. · Participants will gather insights into understanding how their message may be misunderstood. Kim Moreland*, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Administration, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Stephen L. Hansen, Associate Provost for Research and Dean, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Sherylle Mills Englander*, Director, Office of Technology & Industry Alliances, University of California, Santa Barbara

* Lead Presenter

21

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn the most immediate risks associated with the administration and conduct of international projects. · Participants will learn strategies to minimize risk and will be provided key resources to assist with the negotiation and oversight of international collaborations. Prerequisites: Participants should have intermediate knowledge of sponsored programs administration in the U.S. Gunta J. Liders*, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Rochester; John Hanold, Senior Associate Director, Pennsylvania State University; Susan L. Boone, Deputy Director, URA, University of Chicago Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn why an NGO may be the best vehicle to support the in-country operations. · Participants will learn what are the first steps to take before establishing an NGO, and the process to follow in establishing an NGO. · Participants will learn about the pitfalls to avoid, and the compliance issues from in-country and home office perspectives. Marjorie Forster*, Assistant Vice President for Research, University of Maryland Baltimore; William Ferreira, Attorney, Hogan Lovells US LLP Navigating International Project Risks:A Primer Program Level: Intermediate Collaborating with our international research partners is critical for the overall success of our domestic research agenda. While the rewards of international collaboration are great, research administrators must identify and mitigate the risks associated with international projects. These risks will vary depending upon the scope of the project and the location of the research, and may include financial, regulatory, legal and reputational risks. This session will provide a basic overview of the risks associated with international projects, and insights on how to minimize or mitigate these risks.

International International

Creating a University Affiliate/Nongovernmental Organization for Global/International In-Country Operations Program Level: Intermediate Now that we have entered the 21st century era of "globalization", many academic institutions have made the commitment to build upon their international successes to become global institutions. Some institutions have determined that the best way in which to foster collaborations and provide technical assistance to developing countries is to create an "in-country" operation that may take the form of an affiliate of the organization or may require the creation of a Nongovernmental Organization (NGO). Today's session will focus on NGO's and describe the circumstances of when and why it is appropriate and ideal to establish an NGO. We will present the various models that may be considered and what steps to take before, during and after the entity has been established. The session will address in-country compliance with national and local laws as well as structures for the relationships between the home office and in-country operation to ensure compliance with federal funding and cost analysis. Grant Collaborations: Painiful or Precious Program Level: Intermediate The benefits of open collaboration in the world-wide scientific community are many, including, in the words of Nobel Laureate Kenneth G.Wilson, solving "the hardest problems of pure and applied science." But well-intended grant collaborations don't always turn out as planned. Or worse, grant funding was awarded to a "phantom collaboration," a proposed partnership that existed in name only. In this session, we will discuss key factors that determine whether grant collaborations produce precious "wins" or painful "losses." You will learn about the different types of collaborations and characteristics that contribute to success when managing people and projects.We will also share tips for integrating the concept of collaboration throughout proposals and actual comments from grant reviewers who evaluated collaborative proposals.

Pre-award

Learning Objectives: · Participants will understand four different types of collaborations and essential characteristics of grant leaders that contribute to success. · Participants will recognize common collaboration pitfalls that occur in the post-award stage and gain insights on how to prevent them in the pre-award stage. · Participants will learn specific writing tips to share with faculty for integrating the concept of collaboration throughout grant proposals. Prerequisites: Participants should have a basic understanding of collaborations. Jeremy Miner*, Director of Grants and Contracts, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire; Jim Maus, Administrative Director,The Genome Center at Washington University, Washington University School of Medicine

22

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn what areas of research administration practice are the focus of the audit offices of major federal agencies. · Participants will bring to their institutions updated information on audit experiences and approaches. Prerequisites: Attendees should have basic knowledge of sponsored program cost compliance. Garrett R. Sanders*, Vice President, Research and Sponsored Programs Operations,The Research Foundation of SUNY; Michael J. Barone, Interim Vice President for Internal Audit,The Research Foundation of SUNY; Michael J.Vernick, Partner, Hogan Lovells US LLP OIG Audit Initiatives Program Level: Intermediate This session will focus on recent audits by offices of inspectors general at the major federal funding agencies, including DHHS and NSF. As well, discussions will encompass recent Department of Justice settlements. A summary of the key findings and challenges presented by these audits will be discussed.The major topics of consideration will include cost sharing, time and effort reporting, and other topics that have been the subject of recent audits.

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm

Post-award

SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Solution Discussion Leader: Julie Gottlieb, Associate Dean, Policy Coordination, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Marianne L. Hockema, Administrator, Office of Conflict of Interest Review

Conflict of Interest with Regards to Clinical Trials Actual and perceived conflicts of interest are always present, particularly when commercial entities support clinical trials. It is important to disclose and identify such conflicts so they can be effectively managed. How does one anticipate and counsel investigators throughout the process? What happens when new conflicts come to your attention? Through discussion, we will examine a range of issues starting with definitions and continuing with regulations, unique problems presented by start-up companies, use of human subjects, and more! Proposed Difficult Contract Requirements:Assessing Whether or Not You Can Comply Research Administrators are continually facing new and challenging contract requirements which often lead to difficult negotiations as we try to meet Sponsor needs and PI needs, all the while to maintain compliance with regulations and university policies.The goal of this discussion group is to provide some key things to look for as Research Administrators that enable us to negotiate out potential deal breakers and issues to ensure that we have reached an acceptable solution or all for parties.

Clinical

Compliance

Attendees of this discussion will also share their experiences and solutions. This group will focus on the following topic areas: Issues When Contracting with Foreign Sponsors, Federal Contracting/ Troublesome Clauses, Intellectual Property Issues, Sub Awards/Sub Recipient Monitoring Solution Discussion Leader: Michael P. Corcoran, Assistant Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Erin Hall, Senior Contract Specialists, JD Office of Sponsored Programs Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Thomas Egan , Assistant Director, Research Subawards Office, Office of Sponsored Programs Massachusetts Institute of Technology Solution Discussion Leaders: Karen D. Mitchell, Director, Sponsored Projects and Research, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia; Beverly Morehouse, Senior Sponsored Projects Administrator - Post Award, University of Oregon

Departmental

Monitoring Subrecipients:The Pre and Post Perspective Departmental Administrators who have subrecipient awards are faced with many challenges. Fulfilling requests from the central sponsored programs office, post award office, and the PI. You're caught in middle. What do you do to make everyone happy and stay calm? This session will examine departmental subrecipient monitoring and provide some insight into why and how.

* Lead Presenter

23

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leaders: Rosemary E. Madnick, Assistant Vice President, Research Administration, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute; Christine P. Pacheco, Senior Contract & Grant Administrator, University of New Mexico Career Exploration - Transitioning Your Career Assessing yourself is the first step of the career exploration process. Making a career transition can be a complex process with many variables.There is a logical flow to the step-by-step process but we all know that life is not linear. We will cover all aspects of the process when transitioning. In addition, we will provide the tools to break down the career exploration process into five manageable steps: 1) Assess Yourself, 2) Explore Career Options, 3) Gain Skills, 4) Find a Job, 5) Manage Your Career. How to Create NDAs Between Industry and Universities that Work for All? Solution session on how to create NDAs between Industry and Universities that work for all.

Human Capital

Industry

Solution Discussion Leader: Kathleen Lorenzi, Associate Director, Office of Contracts and Grants, University of Colorado at Boulder

Immigration Issues and Updates for Research Administrators The current national security climate has made it more challenging for international research collaborations to happen. Issues abound regarding export controls, access to sensitive information and delays that frustrate our principal investigators and impact research performance. Increasingly, inquiries are being made to sponsored projects offices by agents from the federal agencies concerning activities on our campuses involving foreign nationals.This session will provide an opportunity for participants to share strategies for working with our international offices to facilitate processes and engaging with federal enforcement agencies to proactively promote campus compliance.

International

Attendees will: receive insights into why there are continuing concerns about the activities of individuals admitted to legally work and study in our country; recognize the types of activities that raise scrutiny of our research projects and what are good practices for dealing with issues related to immigration and national security concerns. Solution Discussion Leader: Susan W. Sedwick, Associate Vice President for Research and Director, University of Texas at Austin

24

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Monday, November 1, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)Preparing for the Unthinkable: When Animal Activists Strike

Solution Discussion Leaders: Janet B. Simons, Director, Research Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore; Cindy R. Geppi, Administrator, Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University of Maryland Baltimore Dealing with NIH Public Access Policy The NIH's Public Access Policy became mandatory in 2008, and legislative mandates published in March 2009 made the policy permanent. How can we help our investigators comply with the requirements? How does this policy impact our proposal and progress report review and submission? Who is in charge of training? Who deals with copyright issues? This discussion session is for both departmental and central administrators who manage NIH grants and contracts, and will explore the requirements of the NIH Public Access Policy and how they have affected our work as administrators. Preparing for the Unthinkable:When Animal Activists Strike With alarming frequency, animal rights activists are taking direct action both against laboratory animal facilities and scientists who use animals in their research. The leaders of this session both work at universities that have been the subject of direct action and have first-hand experience in dealing with the aftermath of illegal animal rights activities. They will guide discussion into a wide range of topics designed to help participants prepare for and respond to direct action. Examples include risk assessment, security plans, crisis management, internal communications, media relations, and coordination with law enforcement. Compliance Metrics as Part of an Effective Compliance Program Financial compliance programs take on different shapes depending on the institutions where they are deployed--some are auditing or transaction-based monitoring programs, some are complex training and educational programs, and others are just reinforcing best practices when managing post-award transactions. The purpose of this session will be to show you how a variety of easy-to-calculate quantitative evaluations will yield meaningful, qualitative results--in English, how numbers or stats tell a story of what is really going on with the transactions. The presenters will discuss how to evaluate a variety of post-award transactions and calculating metrics that reveal potential compliance risks using different methods and approaches.

Post-award

Solution Discussion Leaders: Robert P. Lowman, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Ann M. Pollack, Assistant Vice Chancellor-Research, University of California-Los Angeles

Senior

Solution Discussion Leader: Martin Smith, Associate Director, Strategy and Implementation, Grants and Contracts Accounting Services, The George Washington University

6:00 ­ 6:30 pm

LDI GRADUATES AND ALUMNI RECEPTION

Senior

6:00 pm

MONDAY EVENING DINNER GROUPS Dinner groups meet on Monday evening. Menus will be posted early with the sign-up sheets. Most of the restaurants are within a short walking distance, and it is another opportunity to meet some folks and spend some time together while sampling a bit of what Washington has to offer.

DINNER WITH ANDRE COTE NCURA and the Washington Hilton are pleased to present an evening with Executive Chef Andre Coté. Coté has an impressive culinary resume spanning three decades of preparing exquisite dishes coast to coast, from Boston's Back Bay to The Beverly Hilton. This event is limited to 60 people and there is a separate registration.

9:00 pm

REGIONAL HOSPITALITY SUITES OPEN

* Lead Presenter

25

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

6:15 ­ 7:15 am

NCURA FITNESS

7:30 ­ 8:30 am

OPEN NEIGHBORHOOD ROUNDTABLES

7:30 ­ 8:30 am

CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST

7:30 am ­ 5:00 pm ON-SITE SERVICES AND REGISTRATION DESK OPEN EXPOSITION 2010 AND CYBER CAFÉ COMMUTER LOUNGE

8:30 ­ 10:00 am

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Learning Objectives: · Participants will become familiar with patient care costs and how an individual should analyze the budget knowing Medicare/Medicaid policies and federal law. · Participants will learn the differences between a clinical trial budget and a standard research budget. · Participants will gain insight into the budget negotiations so that your university is in compliance with the multiple rules and regulations out there. Ellen Datena*, Acting Executive Director,The Center for Clinical Trials, University of Maryland School of Medicine, University of MD Baltimore

Budget Development with Billing Analysis and Negotiations Program Level: Basic Aren't clinical trials only about patient care costs? Why do I need a budget and how is it developed? Who should be negotiating these budgets and what is the process in analyzing a clinical trial budget over a regular grant budget?

Clinical

Human Research Protections ­ Determining the Need for IRB Review Program Level: Basic Understanding why Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) exist, determining whether a project needs IRB review, and understanding the need for multiple IRB reviews are components of effective educational outreach for any human research protections program. A useful program not only guides users when they need IRB approval, but also helps them understand when they don't need IRB approval. This session will examine the federal definitions of "research" and "human subjects" and provide examples of projects that may, or may not, need IRB approval. Compliance Issues in Reviewing Grant Proposals Program Level: Basic Compliance

Learning Objectives: · Participants will recognize why IRBs exist and how they function; · Participants will identify the key questions to ask to make a determination of the need for IRB review; · Participants will gain insights into how institutional procedures may vary from one organization to another regarding compliance with federal regulations. Dorinda Williams*, Director, Research Protections Office, Brown University; Michael Kostyshak, Assistant Director, Office of Sponsored Projects, Brown University

26

Compliance

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: Participants will brainstorm the myriad of formal and informal ways information is disseminated, practice creating meaningful objectives for workshops and sessions, explore the importance of linking course materials to roles and responsibilities, use and identify effective knowledge transfer techniques and share tips, tricks, and lessons learned when creating a research administration curriculum. Prerequisites: Knowledge of departmental roles and responsibilities and interest in adult learning techniques. Karen Woodward Massey*, Director of Education and Outreach, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University; Samuel Gannon, Manager, Education & Training,Vanderbilt University Medical Center Effective Strategies for Educating Departmental Staff: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You Program Level: Intermediate Education of departmental staff engaged in the administration of sponsored programs is a key ingredient for compliance and a critical factor in the efficient and effective management of sponsored programs. How do institutions help departmental staff get the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfill their responsibilities and do things right the first time? This session will explore ways institutions can implement effective learning programs and create a culture of professional knowledge sharing. The presenters will also discuss tools and techniques that enhance the learning experience and help avoid information overload. NSF Update Program Level: Update This session will cover new developments at NSF - programs, policies, people and budgets. Senior NSF staff will provide a comprehensive review of what is new and developing at the National Science Foundation including an update of NSF activities related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and the America COMPETES Act (ACA).This will include information about ARRA recipient reporting as well as the implementation of ACA provisions such as the mentoring of postdoctoral researchers, the public outcomes report for the general public, responsible conduct of research and cost sharing. The session will also provide an overview of key administration priorities with regard to transparency and accountability and how it relates to your work as research administrators. Updates on the progress of NSFs modernization of FastLane with Research.gov will also be provided. Leadership Development for Research Administrators: Perils and Pitfalls for New Managers Program Level: Overview Learning to manage can be difficult initially. As a new manager you need to develop new skills if you are to be effective. However, the majority of new managers do not receive any training or coaching prior to beginning their position. This interactive session will discuss common new manager mistakes and share the experiences of three managers and their transition to management From Customer to Client:A New Paradigm for Service Program Level: Overview Research Administrators are members of the "service sector" of the national economy, and most of us strive to provide the highest quality services to our faculty. So why don't they appreciate what we do? The problem may be that we're using the wrong models for customer service. Rather than look for "customer service" best practices, we should be studying the best practices in "client relations" that come from the consulting industry. Human Capital Departmental

Learning Objectives: · Participants will understand how administration priorities affect current and future NSF budgets. · Participants will understand the specific legislative mandates of the America COMPETES Act as they pertain to NSF and how they ultimately affect the submission of research proposals and administration of NSF awards. · Participants will gain insight into the federal grants management landscape and how Research.gov is implementing broad changes to the future of NSF. Jean I. Feldman*, Head, Policy Office, Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management, National Science Foundation

Federal

Human Capital

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn to recognize top manager mistakes. · Participants will develop coping mechanisms. · Participants will gain resources to facilitate their growth in management. Tamara V. Hill*, Assistant Director, Sponsored Programs Financial Administration, University of Louisville; Jennifer J. Crockett, Budget Manager,Vice Provost for Research, Northeastern University; Jaynee L. Tolle, Senior Grant Administrator, University of Cincinnati Learning Objective: Participants will learn the difference between a customer and a client, and will start providing some concrete examples as to how we can move forward as trusted advisors to our faculty. Marcia Trudgen*, Business Manager, Institute of Social & Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage; Jeffrey J. Ritchie, Grant Management Analyst, Aurora Health Care

* Lead Presenter

27

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: Attendees should get a broader international perspective of how changes to the global R&D landscape are altering established research patterns and trends; how U.S. research institutions are being challenged in ways that they previously were not; and what strategies universities are engaging in to address these challenges. Daniel Calto*, Director of Business Development, A&G Sales, Elsevier Recent Developments in a Global Research Landscape: An International Perspective Program Level: Intermediate The global R&D landscape has been undergoing rapid change recently, especially in the last decade. In 2002, total R&D investment in Asia overtook the total R&D investment in the EU-27, and by 2011 it is projected that the total R&D invested in Asia will surpass the total R&D investment in the United States for the first time. This is having a number of impacts on the research enterprise in U.S. universities. This session will give a brief overview of these changes, and some of the drivers that are continuing to accelerate the pace of change. It will also address the ways in which U.S. institutions are responding to these unprecedented challenges. Basics of Contracting Program Level: Basic Are you new to the world of contracting or working in another area of research administration and wish to become more familiar with the fundamental components of contracts? If so, this session will help you build basics skills to function more effectively in your role when reviewing and negotiating non-governmental contracts. The presenters will share information, tools and resources to help the participant understand, negotiate and administer contracts with industry, municipalities, and non-profit organizations.

International

Pre-award

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn basic contract types and the essential elements of contract formation. · Participants will learn how to read a contract. · Participants will learn how to spot potential issues in contracts · Participants will learn how to manage contract risks by designing constructive solutions and negotiation tactics. Ty Helpinstill*, Senior Grants and Contract Specialist, University of Texas at Austin; Theresa C. Hollister, Sr. Grant and Contract Administrator, Office of Sponsored Programs, Binghamton University

28

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will be aware of issues coming out of NSF OIG effort report audits. · Participants will have an awareness of best practices and policies to manage effort reporting. · Participants will gain insights into different systems available to manage effort reporting. Prerequisites: Participants should have a knowledge of federal effort reporting requirements. Tracey Fraser*, Senior Director, Financial Services, California Institute of Technology; Kim Moreland, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Administration, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Jennifer Hubert, Director, Huron Consulting Group; Tammy Freeman, Program Manager, Research Compliance, Office of Sponsored Projects, University of Nevada, Reno Katherine Ho*, Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Research, Stanford University; Karen Kearny, Global Business Director, Controller's Office, Stanford University Effort Reporting Program Level: Intermediate Effort Reporting seems destined to be an issue that will always be hovering near the top of the research administrators `hot topics' list. This session includes speakers who have been through NSF OIG effort audits and lived to tell the tale. In addition to discussing audit experiences and the findings and recommendations coming out of these audits, we will also focus on the practical implications of corrective action plans, share ideas for policy initiatives to manage effort reporting on a life cycle approach from proposal submission to close out, and discuss different effort management systems.

Post-award Senior

The International Factor: Considerations When Working Abroad or With a Foreign Entity Program Level: Advanced Do your faculty, staff and researchers travel abroad? Do you have awards from foreign institutions? Do you issue subawards to foreign subrecipients? There are an increasing number of issues that must be addressed because of international collaborations and travel abroad by faculty and students. International issues are not limited to sponsored research awards with funding from foreign entities and subawards to international collaborators. This session will provide an overview and background to set the context for why faculty and administrators (department and central) should be concerned and what you should know about international issues.What are the drivers for concern? Why do IRS Form 990, Export Control, and other regulatory issues matter? What legal, employment and tax issues must be addressed? What health and safety issues should you be aware of? When receiving funding from a foreign entity or issuing a subaward to a foreign entity, what are the major issues (financial and otherwise) that should you be aware of?

* Lead Presenter

29

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am

Clinical

SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Solution Discussion Leader: Karen Roz, Associate Director, Clinical Research Support Services, Office of Research Administration, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Clinical Guidelines and Compliance-What is Standard of Care This session will be operational in how to get the right info to people who do the Research Billing.

Establishing an International Campus As scientific and medical research becomes increasingly international, research institutions are "going global" by establishing a variety of programs overseas. In recent years, U.S. institutions have made significant investments in day-to-day operations abroad, including scientific, charitable, and social welfare projects around the world.This solution discussion will explore tools and tips, as well as pitfalls and pratfalls, associated with establishing an operation abroad. We will identify the most common issues and challenges, discuss practical approaches to a variety of problems, and assess the risks associated with various activities. Topics include, among others, underlying strategies to overseas activity, the "nuts and bolts" of establishing and running a program, overseas employment, and international contracting Effective Partnerships 101: Pre and Post Award at the Departmental Level No team can play well together without practice and a plan. Some partnerships fit like a glove from the beginning; others take time and adjustments. Pre- and Post-award at the Departmental Level can be made to fit like a glove. This interactive session will offer strategies and methods to develop or strengthen a partnership between the two areas. Metrics, Models and Tools for Departmental Research Administrators Departmental Research Administration comes in all shapes and sizes, and there is no one model that fits all. How do you know which one works best for you at your institution? How can you determine if you have enough staff? That your workload is appropriately distributed? How much service do you provide to your PI's? You can't do it all, so what are the essential services that a department administrator must provide? Join us for a lively discussion on what metrics and models are currently being used by successful departmental administrators. We will also share some tools developed by department administrators to promote a proactive approach to research administration.

Solution Discussion Leader: William F. Ferreira, Attorney at Law, Hogan Lovells US LLP

Compliance

Departmental

Solution Discussion Leader: Dorothy A. Spurlock, Director, Research & Sponsored Programs, University Office of Research,The University of Toledo

Solution Discussion Leader: Susan Cassidy Zipkin, Director, Research Finance Radiology, Brigham & Women's Hospital

30

Departmental

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leaders: Judy L. Fredenberg, Director, Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Montana; Robert P. Lowman, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Why Do We Do That? If you are newer to research administration, there is an awful lot to comprehend. Often you are fed "by a fire-hose" and new information is constantly bombarding you. In the process of submitting proposals, reviewing awards and negotiating contracts, we often get so involved with the "WHAT" of the process that we lose the perspective of the actions we are taking.This session will allow the less experienced research administrators to listen to more experienced administrators explain "Why" our efforts are important.We'll ask the attendees to think about their work processes and activities. Do they make sense? If not, here is the opportunity to ask "WHY." This interactive session will provide the opportunity to obtain concrete information not usually available in publications. We will think about the "why" of research administration activities, not just the "what", hear the perspectives of senior research administrators regarding the long-term results of everyday actions and share experiences that illustrate common issues have potential positive or negative consequences depending on processes. Department or Central Administration: Ever Thought about Making the Switch? If you're thinking about making the transition between departmental and central administration attending the career transition solution discussion will give you an inside look into the key variances associated with this change. A panel of administrators with experience making the switch will lead a conversation with a focus on the various differences to be aware of such as culture, roles and responsibilities within the pre-and-post award function, support and training, and road blocks that arise among other topics. The solution discussion will help prepare you to make an informed decision as to whether or not to make the transition. Attend, ask questions, and make an informed decision about your career. Limited Proposal Submission Opportunities Federal agencies, state agencies and private foundations regularly issue requests for proposals that limit the number of applications which they will accept from an institution.The frequency of such limited submission requests from federal agencies has increased with the funding of large center proposals where multi-disciplinary efforts are required, and from private foundations who are trying to limit labor costs for proposal review. The manner in which sponsors limit applications vary, but usually are one of the following: only a specific number of proposals may be submitted; only degree granting institutions may submit; or only professors at certain stages

General

Human Capital

Solution Discussion Leaders: Roseann L. Luongo, Sponsored Programs Officer and Manager, Harvard University; Christopher Kelly, Department Administrator, Harvard Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology; Hernan Santana, Finance Manager, Division of Pediatric Hematology/Onocology Children's Hospital Boston

of their career may submit.When the number of proposals is limited, an institution should have a process in place to select the internal proposal with the greatest chance of winning the award. This discussion will address the processes to identify limited submission proposals, how to notify potential candidates, and how to review and select the proposal if the number of internal proposals exceeds the number allowed by the funding source. Solution Discussion Leader: Gregory L. Foxworth, Assistant Vice President for Research,Texas A & M University; Karen D. Mitchell, Director, Office of Sponsored Projects and Research, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

Pre-award

* Lead Presenter

31

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leader: Jeanne M. Galvin-Clarke, Manager, Internal Training and Grant Administration, University of Maryland Baltimore Dealing with Difficult Subcontracts Not all subawards are created equal.There are those that fit neatly into your sub template like Cinderella and her glass slipper. And, then there are those that are like fitting the wicked step-sisters. If you find yourself struggling with ill-fitting subawards, join our discussion.Topics are expected to include subs under industrysponsored, investigator-initiated research agreements, subs for multiple clinical sites under federal cooperative agreements or industry agreements, consortium agreements that involve several funding sources, subs with the DOD labs, and subs from industry under their federal contract.We want to hear your stories and ideas as well. Please bring your experiences, questions, and advise to share. FFATA:Transparent as Mud The buzz words in DC these days are "Transparency and Accountability." In a time of diminishing resources and the plethora of new reporting mandates, can we really accomplish one without sacrificing the other? The genesis of this complex regulation confounds most while the daunting task of addressing yet one more reporting burden may drive other to considering a career change.This session dissects the regulation, identifies the salient requirements and proposes a strategy for developing mechanisms to comply. Understanding the Roles of Centers, Institutes, and Laboratories Within Your University Research Centers and Institutes are a common mechanism to organize and facilitate research at schools and universities. In addition to research, findings indicate that they are also involved in a range of activities including education, service and technology transfer; however, most do not have authority comparable to their academic departments. How does the hierarchy work at your institution? Are the rules different for your faculty working in a Center? Is it "clear as mud" to those faculty who have dual appointments? Come share some common practices and problems experienced within your University. Compare notes and find solutions!

Pre-award

Post-award

Learning Objectives: Attendees will: · Review the basic tenets of the FFATA regulation; · Identify the reporting requirements; · Explore strategies for data mapping the required fields to inform our reporting; and · Share ideas for efficiently complying with FFATA Solution Discussion Leader: Susan W. Sedwick, Associate Vice President for Research and Director, Office of Sponsored Projects, University of Texas at Austin

Solution Discussion Leader: Barbara A. Cole, Director, Office of Sponsored Research, Stanford University

8:30 am ­ Noon

SENIOR FORUMS See page 85 for details. Pre-registration required. No additional fee.

10:00 ­ 10:30 am

REFRESHMENT BREAK

32

Senior

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Learning Objectives: · Participants will develop an awareness of university policy development. · Participants will discover various ways to create policies. · Participants will learn how to deal with a variety of challenges that arise in the policy-making process. Stephen Erickson*, Director, Research Integrity and Compliance, Boston College; Bob Lowman, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Kathi Delehoy, Senior Associate Vice President For Research Administration, Colorado State University Case Studies: Developing and Implementing a New Policy for Compliance Program Level: Intermediate The development of compliance related policies is a complicated process that can be very rewarding and very frustrating at the same time.We know such policies are needed, but convincing others is sometimes difficult.Taking multiple perspectives into account and balancing the various interests on campus can be challenging, especially when our policies have to be consistent with external requirements with which we are bound to comply.The panelists will each present a case study of a policy they have helped develop.They will describe the process, pitfalls, and obstacles in developing effective compliance-related policies. The Top Ten Things Your PI Should Know Program Level: Basic The Principal Investigator (PI) is responsible for the programmatic performance, and the administrative and financial management of sponsored projects. Complying with myriad terms and conditions, agency policies, regulations, laws, and institutional policies governing sponsored research is a daunting proposition, especially for a new PI. What are the essential things a PI needs to know in order to successfully manage a project and comply with the responsibilities that accompany sponsored funding? What is the best way to provide this information to the PI? When is the best time to make the PI aware of issues? Session leaders and participants will discuss the "Top 10 Things a PI Should Know" as well as how to best communicate information and ensure it is understood. A Day in the Life of a Departmental Research Administrator:A Bird's Eye View for Central Administrators Program Level: Basic It's 8:30 am on Wednesday and a Departmental Research Administrator (DRA) has a "to do" list ready: 1) Contract Renewal for Year 3 of state funded grant, 2) Conflict of Interest forms for hiring a new contractor who happens to be a faculty member's husband, 3) No Cost Extension Request for grant 4) Commitment letter for new faculty hire, 5) Reconcile Key Desk database with departmental key database, 6) Contact University Information Technology Services and Facilities Management regarding moving programs from 1st to 4th floor. But WAIT a faculty member has just come flying in the door with a grant proposal that has to be sent to Sponsored Projects by the end of the day and this is the first time the DRA has heard about it . . .

Compliance

Departmental

Learning Objectives: · Participants will share ideas and prioritize the essential things a PI must know. · Participants will develop effective communication strategies, imparting information when PI's need to know it, in comprehensible terms . · Participants will ask questions to help come up with creative (and compliant) solutions and discuss how to create collaborative partnerships with your researchers. Patrick W. Fitzgerald*, Associate Dean for Research Administration, Harvard University; Karen Woodward Massey, Director of Education and Outreach, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University

Learning Objectives: · Participants will receive insight into the daily lives of the departmental research administrators · Leaders and Participants will share tips for how to work together under pressure, time, and budgetary constraints. · The ultimate goal will be to further empathy and broaden perspectives across the research administration spectrum. Samantha J.Westcott*, Grant Manager, Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology; Lisa N. Gentry, Assistant Dean, Finance & Administration, University of Arizona

Departmental

* Lead Presenter

33

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Discover what is happening at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding grants, Recovery Act, Single Audits and Grant Streamlining? It will include: · The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) and its new reporting and A-133 audit requirements · The federal Grant environment in the new Age of Transparency and Accountability · An update on all A-133 projects & revisions - current areas of focus · A briefing on the FY 2010 Compliance Supplement Pre-Requisites: · Working knowledge of OMB Grant Circulars ­A-21, A-110, A-133 · Basic Single Audit Requirements and its Compliance Requirements · General knowledge of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Gilbert Tran*, Technical Manager, Office of Management and Budget Leveraging "Free" Web-based Technologies for Communications and Training. How to Use YouTube and iTunes University for Training Programs Program Level: Overview The cost of deploying and developing a campus training program can be costly. This session will explore web-based applications such as YouTube, iTunes that can be used to deploy information and training. Case studies on how you can use these resources will be presented. YouTube (university channels) and iTunes University. Unique Legal and Practical Issues Arising in International Collaboration Program Level: Intermediate While setting up and managing international research does not require your own diplomatic corps, the successful administration of overseas research requires patience, practice, and expertise above and beyond that of the traditional "in-country" programs. If you find yourself struggling to set up and manage an ever increasing portfolio of complex international initiatives, then this session is right for you. Join the session and through use of the presenters real world examples in the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, learn about special considerations in establishing and conducting international research, specific laws and regulations governing international commerce, practical issues in international contracting, and institutional best practices as we share our perspectives, problems, and successes in international programs. There will be a follow-up solution discussion on International Collaborations with case studies presented and analyzed Tuesday 4:00-5:00 PM. Learning Objectives: · Participants will become familiar with websites such as YouTube (university channels) and iTunes University that can be used to deploy training. · Participants will gain insight into how to leverage "free" technologies to deploy training. Anita Mills*, Associate Director for Research Administration Training & Institutional Liaison, Office of Research Services, New York University; Tony Onofrietti, Director of Research Education, University of Utah Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about setting up and managing international research. · Participants will learn specific laws and regulations governing international commerce. · Participants will learn about special considerations for winding up and winding down international collaborations (sometimes under emergency conditions). Prerequisites: Participants should have a general knowledge on how to manage research projects as well as some basic exposure to international projects and collaborations. David Brady*, Director, Export and Secure Research Compliance, Virginia Tech; Janet B. Simons, Director, Research Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore; William Ferreira, Attorney, Hogan Lovells US LLP OMB Update : A New of Age of Transparency and Accountability for Grants Program Level: Update This session provides the latest information for grantees who receives ARRA grant funds and auditors who perform A-133 or Yellow Book audits on federal programs.

34

International

Human Capital

Federal

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Randall Draper*, Director, Office of Contracts and Grants, University of Colorado at Boulder; Sherylle Mills Englander, Director, Office of Technology & Industry Alliances, University of California, Santa Barbara Building and Maintaining Industry-University Centers Program Level: Intermediate Federal and State governments have long touted, and sometimes supported, collaborations between universities and industry. On paper, they appear to be business relationships with unlimited potential. Far too often, however, the dream doesn't turn into reality. Federal or State support dries up; industry becomes disenchanted with university IP and publication policies; Principal Investigators lose interest.Why does this happen? What are the pitfalls? How can Sponsored Projects and Technology Transfer work together to build and manage financially successful and scientifically effective centers? This session will address the expectations, responsibilities, and roles of each of the parties, including the sponsoring agencies; review various organizational structures/functions that facilitate or inhibit success; and delve into the practical issues of managing a university ­ industry center to success. (Time permitting, we will review By-Laws, Membership Agreements, and licensing plans that work and don't work.) Advanced A-133:What the Auditors are Really Looking For Program Level: Advanced

Industry

Michael Miller*, Senior Financial Analyst, Controller's Operations, New York University

Post-award Thinking Strategically While Dealing with Today's Realities Program Level: Advanced Status quo is not even an option in this era of increasing demands and decreasing resources. Having a mission statement that clearly articulates the role of the organization and a strategic map that guides the organization in decision making and proactive planning is critical. Responding effectively to yet another new mandate while identifying areas to reduce costs requires that leaders of sponsored projects offices think strategically and plan collegially on ways to effectively carry out our mission of helping make research happen.

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain insights into what comprises an effective mission statement and explore strategies for developing a strategic plan. · Participants will encourage discourse among sponsored projects colleagues impacted by strategic planning. · Participants will develop meaningful outcomes and measures for individual goals and objectives. Susan W. Sedwick*, Associate Vice President for Research and Director, University of Texas at Austin

Senior

* Lead Presenter

35

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Solution Discussion Leader: Mark A. Burnham, Associate Vice President for Governmental Affairs, Michigan State University; April Burke, President and Founder, Lewis-Burke Associates; Carrie Wolinetz, Federal Relations Staff, Association of American Universities Assessing, Managing and Resolving Individual Conflicts of Interest: Compliance or Public Relations This session will explore the public relations/government relations aspects of managing individual conflicts of interest, including a look at how poorly managed conflicts both on your campus and elsewhere can impact the institution and the individual researcher. We will discuss how the competing pressures of economic development desires of the federal and state governments and the concerns over conflicts of interest place institutions and researchers in increasingly difficult situations. Also, we will discuss the most prudent external relations approaches to handling a conflict issue when it arises and we will discuss where these policies appear to be heading. Strategies for Effective Training of Departmental Staff Typically the staff in the central research administration offices are offered training opportunities more frequently than their counterparts who are working in the departments. Since it is just as important to ensure that our front line staff working in the departments have the support and training that they need to do their jobs well, this solution discussion will discuss how to develop and implement a training program geared toward the needs of the grants administration staff located in the departments. This will include determining areas of need, curriculum development, evaluative tools and the need to continuously update the program to meet the needs of the audiences. Effort Reporting Systems Looking to score an A+ with A-21 compliance? This session is designed to show you how the University of Wisconsin-Madison has taken an approach to designing and implementing a custom effort reporting system to manage the full life cycle of effort performed on sponsored research projects and also guarantee meeting both their state and federal A-21 reporting requirements. Effort Reporting is one of the first areas auditors focus on, as it represents the primary method to validate nearly 2/3 of the direct costs of research.This session will discuss financial and operational compliance risks related to effort reporting and offer strategies used to mitigate the risk. Using a combination of Office of Inspector General (OIG) effort reporting guidelines, with personal experiences of establishing and extracting data from the PeopleSoft grants/financial source systems, this session will provide participants

Compliance

Solution Discussion Leader: Robin L. Cyr, Director of Training and Policy, Partners Healthcare

Departmental

with proven strategies to reduce compliance risks and offer alternatives for addressing effort reporting issues with a web-based effort reporting system (ECRT). Participants will learn about the current audit environment related to research compliance and specific ways the effort reporting system is used to meet effort reporting compliance requirements and prevent a bureaucratic nightmare. The presenters will incorporate a listing of several effort reporting systems that demonstrate how each system works in conjunction with Federal Regulations, University Policy, end user processes and system requirements. Solution Discussion Leaders: David Ngo, Effort Administrator and Ecrt Manager, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Joyce Ferland, Manager of Sponsored Programs Accounting,Tufts University; Brian Korblick, Manager, Huron Consulting Group

36

Federal

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leader: Judy L. Fredenberg, Director, Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Montana Leadership Development for Research Administrators: Dealing with Difficult People It may be a faculty member on your campus, a colleague in your office, or a program officer at a sponsoring agency, but we all deal with difficult people while striving to maintain a cordial, serviceoriented environment (no ranting and raving in public areas). This solution discussion will explore strategies for dealing with awkward situations and difficult people, such as identifying "teachable moments," separating the person from the circumstance, and building an advocacy base.We will share experiences and techniques on how to reframe situations so that we may be viewed as an on-ramp rather than a road-block. How and When to Pursue International Funding Opportunities? This session would start of with a discussion among participants on developments in the funding landscape; are things becoming more international? If so, what new challenges and opportunities does that create? Subsequently,This session encourages participants to share best practices, experiences, and recent lessons learnt when it comes to pursuing international funding opportunities. Funding International Projects There's no question ­ global challenges require global collaboration. As universities take on this global perspective, how do scientists wishing to collaborate find money to "do their thing?"This question needs to be addressed between countries, between institutions, and between collaborators.There are no cookie-cutter solutions, but we will share some concepts to successfully launching and sustaining international collaborations. Best Practices for Successful Univeristy/NGO Relationships The focus of this solution discussion is to concentrate on the best practices of successful university and nongovernmental organization (NGO) relationships. We will explore what constitutes best practices, and how can institutions go about identifying, creating and implementing best practices. We will discuss what models already exist and highlight what makes a particular approach successful.We will emphasize what business processes will result in the best Tools: Sub vs Vendor Who is a subrecipient, who is a vendor and who is an employee? How can I tell the difference? OMB Circular A-133 provides guidance but reading section 210 makes my head hurt and I still don't have a definitive answer. If this sounds like you or if you weren't even aware you needed to know the difference, join us for a clarifying discussion, including presentation of handy tools to help you make and document your decisions. Please bring any helpful tips or tools you may have and share those with us, too. practices for the management of in-country operations through the creation of an NGO. Participants will discuss: What are best practices for implementing an NGO; which models produce successful University/NGO relationships; and how to develop business processes for a successful University/NGO relationship. Solution Discussion Leader: Marjorie Forster, Assistant Vice President for Research, University of Maryland Baltimore

Human Capital

International

International

Industry

Solution Discussion Leader: John Carfora, Executive Director for Research Advancement and Compliance, Josine Stallinga, Elsevier product manager.

Solution Discussion Leader: Cynthia Hope, Assistant Vice President, Office for Research,The University of Alabama

Pre-award

* Lead Presenter

37

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leaders: Brian J. Sevier, Assistant Director, University of Florida, Contracts & Grants, IFAS; Richard Swann, Director of Sponsored Programs Administration, Mississippi State University Creating and Utilizing Post-award Policies Policy...everyone's least favorite word. Join us in this solution discussion for guidance on developing practical and effective policies to ensure proper post-award administration and financial compliance.When developing policies you have to carefully balance the letter of the law, your institution's business practices, daily office procedures, and also customer service. So how do you develop and implement a policy that is not only effective in ensuring financial compliance, but also gets the work accomplished efficiently and accurately? Ah, but don't forget if you claim it to be policy you will be tested on it! Creating, Supporting and Sustaining Diverse Environments for Research This discussion session will serve as a platform for colleagues to discuss and share their institution's ways of supporting and sustaining a diverse environment for research. The panel will share their policies and programs that have been established at their institutions for faculty and students. Participants are encouraged to bring their institution's perspective and impart their tips and tools for supporting a diverse research environment that others may find useful and possibly apply

Post-award

and implement at institution. Also, we encourage you to bring your lessons learned and success stories to share with your colleagues. Solution Discussion Leader: Josie Jimenez, Associate Director, Office of Grants and Contracts, New Mexico State University; Rosemary Madnick, Assistant Vice President, Research Administration, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center; Georgette Sakamoto, Administrative Officer, Office of Research Services, University of Hawaii

12:00 ­ 1:00 pm

LUNCHEON AND PRESENTATION OF REGIONAL TRAVEL AWARDS AND CATHERINE CORE TRAVEL AWARD RECIPIENTS

1:15 ­ 2:30 pm

Senior

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Learning Objectives: · Participants will become familiar with the complex regulatory environment for clinical trials of investigational new drugs, and its impact on contract negotiations · Participants will learn about key issues that often arise in negotiating clinical trial agreements with commercial sponsors, and useful approaches to resolving such issues, including: ­ ownership and use of data, ownership of intellectual property, and publication rights ­ confidentiality of sponsor's proprietary information; Indemnification and insurance ­ payment for subject injuries, including effect of the Medicare "secondary payer" rule ­ reporting requirements ­ requirements for AAHRPP-Accredited institutions · Participants will also receive practical tips for successful negotiation strategies with industry sponsors and CROs. Lucy Robins*, Director, Clinical Research Contracts, University of Maryland, Baltimore

Clinical Trial Agreement Negotiations: Challenges and Pitfalls Defined Program Level: Basic Negotiating the contract for an industry-sponsored clinical trial is similar to negotiating a standard research agreement, but there are some significant differences. There are additional regulatory hurdles, and companies can have concerns that are very different from governmental or nonprofit sponsors. Ever wonder what challenges are unique to negotiating these agreements? There are numerous and complex issues that can arise, and this session will provide you with some examples and the workarounds. Clinical

38

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

1:15 ­ 2:30 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about the HHS Office of Inspector General 2011 Work Plan and planned reviews and audits. · Participants will learn about specific audit issues that may affect their institutions. · Participants will gain insight about proactively preparing for audits in the long and short term. Diane Dean*, Director Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight, NIH/OD/OER/OPERA, Department of Health and Human Services; Kathy Hancock, Assistant Grants Compliance Officer, Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, OER, NIH Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about the steps involved to design and implement new organizational models. · Participants will learn about effective communication strategies to engage and involve people in the process. · Participants will learn how to monitor and evaluate results. Prerequisites: Participants who are contemplating or in the process of contemplating organizational change will benefit most from this session. Eileen Nielsen*, Director of Sponsored Projects Compliance, Harvard University; Frank Urso, Executive Director for Research Administration, Harvard School of Public Health Learning Objectives: · Participants should become aware of current policy issues that directly (or perhaps indirectly) affect research and education at their universities. · Participants should be able to identify mechanisms to provide input on evolving biosecurity policy issues. · Participants should be able to identify individuals or agencies with whom they may want to develop professional relationships and should be able to identify resources for potentially addressing national security concerns. Kavita M. Berger*, Associate Program Director, Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Tobin L. Smith, Associate Vice President for Federal Relations, Association of American Universities; Diane DiEuliis, Senior Policy Analyst,White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; David Wynes, Vice President of Research Administration, Emory University Be Prepared: Practice Preventive Compliance Program Level: Intermediate The OIG Work Plan contains various projects to be addressed during the fiscal year by the Office of Audit Services, Office of Evaluation and Inspections, Office of Investigations, and Office of Counsel to the Inspector General. The Work Plan includes projects planned in each of the Department's major entities as well as projects related to issues that cut across departmental programs. Although the FY 2011 Work Plan may seem ominous, it can be a roadmap to preventive compliance. Compliance Departmental Federal

Designing New Organizational Models for Research Administration: Principles, Process and Implementation Program Level: Advanced Designing new organizational models requires time, commitment, and an honest assessment of existing organizational structures. In this session we will take a look at the Research Transformation Project undertaken at the Harvard School of Public Health to design, develop and plan a revised organizational and operating research administration structure to improve service, efficiency and productivity. The session will focus on the underlying principles and process that can lead to the development and implementation of new organizational models. Biological Research Program Level: Overview New discoveries in the biological sciences and new applications of biotechnology offer the potential for vast societal benefits but also have led to increased national security concerns. Around 2001, concerns over bioterrorism resulted in significant increases in funding for basic and applied biodefense research, which prompted increased investments in the construction of facilities to address the biosafety risks associated with that research. At the same time, concerns about the potential exploitation of emerging biotechnologies and the risk of possible theft of dangerous pathogens initiated policy debates on how to minimize security risks. Current policy debates center around issues common to both safety and security, such as good research practices and vetting of personnel. Despite ongoing efforts to involve the scientific community in current policy discussions, more needs to be done to facilitate communication and engagement among the scientific community, security community and law enforcement, and policy-makers that benefit both the conduct and advancement of science and national security interests.While the security and scientific communities understand the importance of advancing research, assessing risks associated with that research, and implementing good research practices, there are, at times, differing perspectives on what constitutes a proper balance between these activities. This session will describe the current biosecurity policy issues; efforts to enhance communication between the security, policymaking, and scientific communities; university perspectives on addressing institutional priorities and national security requirements; and outreach efforts by the U.S. government.

* Lead Presenter

39

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

1:15 ­ 2:30 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain insight on ways to enhance their effort reporting system through learning what steps other universities have taken to address audit findings. · Participants will learn the different approaches used to prepare for and manage a lengthy audit. · Participants will learn about the common issues auditors are identifying in these audits and how others are responding to those issues. Prerequisites: Basic knowledge of the effort reporting process and requirements along with an understanding of the OMB Circular A21 requirements for effort reporting is required. Jerry G. Fife*, Vice Chancellor for Administration,Vanderbilt University; Robert C.Andresen, Assistant Director, Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Wisconsin - Madison; Michael R. Ludwig, Director of Sponsored Programs, Purdue University PUI's: Everything You Wanted to Know But Were Afraid to Ask Program Level: While research administration at PUIs can bring many challenges surrounding resources, infrastructure and institutional support, there are just as many reasons that panel members CHOOSE to work at a PUI.The opportunity to be immersed in ideas, be a part of a growing culture of research, and push the edges of what is possible at our institutions are just some of the reasons why we see working at a PUI as a meaningful opportunity.This forum is designed for sponsored program administrators from PUIs of all experience levels to share successes, hot topics for PUIS, and examples of what can go right. Solution oriented panelists will share best practices and devote plenty of time problem-solving your burning questions. Be prepared for an interactive discussion! Change Management:Trying to Make it Work for You Program Level: Overview Change is good, right? Some might say that it depends on who's asking, and whether you are in control of the change or not. Some might hold the view that you are simply a product of your environment and that you can't plan ahead.We'd probably all agree that with today's challenges, research administrators at colleges and universities know more about change management than they care to! We'll talk about how research administrators learn to succeed in organized chaos from the top down and bottom up and with all things in between! Joseph McNicholas*, Director, Office for Research and Sponsored Projects, Loyola Marymount University; Pamela Napier, Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Programs,Western Kentucky University; Anne Pascucci, Director, Office of Grants and Sponsored Projects, Bridgewater State College; other members of the NCURA PUI Neighborhood Committee to be announced An Update on NSF OIG Labor Effort Audits Program Level: Intermediate The NSF OIG is continuing the labor effort audits at several universities. This session will focus on what we have learned in preparing for an audit, working with the auditors throughout the audit, and what ways our effort reporting processes have improved as a result of the audit. Each panelist will address their own experiences with the audience about what went well, what didn't, and what has changed at their university since the completion of the audit. In addition, the capstone report to be published by NSF prior to the meeting will be discussed.

General

Federal

Learning Objectives: · Participants will recognize that their university's culture and structure drives change management. · Participants will understand the essential components of change management techniques. · Participants will gain insights into how to embrace change to advance in the profession and for personal growth. Nancy Daneau*, Assistant Director, Administrative and Operations, State University of New York at Stony Brook; Anne M. Pascucci, Director, Radford University; Jennifer J. Crockett, Budget Manager,Vice Provost for Research, Northeastern University

40

Human Capital

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

1:15 ­ 2:30 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will recognize the FAR clauses which often need to be changed or expanded by adding appropriate alternatives resulting in a contract which is consistent with the needs of universities, foundations, not for profits and/or small businesses. · Participants will develop an appreciation of the importance of accepting only appropriate FAR clauses and/or alternates in federal contracts. · Participants will develop strategies which can be used to negotiate parts of federal contracts or FAR clauses in subagreements which have flowed down from prime contractors. Patricia A. Hawk*, Director, Sponsored Programs, Oregon State University; David J. Mayo, Director of Sponsored Research, California Institute of Technology; John Hanold, Senior Associate Director, Pennsylvania State University Problematic FAR Clauses and Negotiation Tactics Program Level: Intermediate The section in a federal solicitation or contract titled "Contract Clauses" can be the most daunting group of pages a contract negotiator has to cope with when responding to a solicitation or reviewing a federal contract.This section usually consists of a long list of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses with numbers, dates and titles.The challenge for contract negotiators is deciding which clauses require close scrutiny, determining where to focus individual efforts, and developing methods to negotiate the correct use of the clause or insisting on an alternate as appropriate.This session will assist contract negotiators in developing an understanding of the appropriate FAR clauses, recognizing those FAR clauses which often need to be replaced or expanded, and developing strategies for negotiating with federal contract officers (or the next higher-tier if you are dealing with a subcontract). Selected FAR clauses will be addressed, including their specific purpose, their importance to institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations and strategies for dealing with each clause. This session assumes a basic working knowledge and understanding of the FAR. FAR supplements and agency-specific clauses will be discussed only to the extent that they are relevant to the general FAR discussion. Come with your favorite FAR stories, and share your experiences (good and bad). Overview of A-110 and A-21 Program Level: Basic If you only had an hour and a half to understand the OMB circulars that address the cost principals and the administrative requirements of managing federally sponsored awards, what would you want to know? This session will give you a give you a broad overview of these circulars and with a focus on the most important aspects of each of them. Topics include: how are reasonable, allowable and allocable defined? Where is the best place to look for the definitions? What does "expanded authorities" really mean? How are direct and indirect costs defined? Is a computer a piece of equipment? Please bring your copy of A-21 and A-110 with you, our goal is to point you to the sections you will use in your work life as a research administrator. Learning Outcomes: · Understanding of the what each of these circulars address in the terms on managing federal awards. · Knowledge of the most commonly used clauses in the circulars in managing the sponsored agreements. Timothy E. Reuter, Associate Director Post Award, Stanford University; Ann M. Holmes, Assistant Dean, Finance & Administration, University of Maryland College Park

Post-award

Pre-award

* Lead Presenter

41

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

1:15 ­ 2:30 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn what drives the media. · Participants will learn the kind of information reporters look for, and how best to interact with them. · Participants will learn the difference between crisis and noncrisis media interactions, and how to prepare for each. Prerequisites: Open to anyone interested in tips for effective interaction with the news media in today's media environment. Patrick D. Green*, Associate Director, Division of Sponsored Research, Vanderbilt University; Sarah Baldassaro, George Washington University; Heather Date , George Washington University What to do When the Media Calls Program Level: Advanced Whether in crisis or everyday situations, the public remains fascinated by developments in science and research. Interactions with the media are the best ­ and often the scariest ­ ways to get your message across to the broadest possible audience.This is true for subject matter experts and administrators alike. In this session, participants will learn the building blocks of successful media interactions, including advanced preparations and survival skills to rely on once the cameras are rolling.The session will also include discussion of message discipline for administrators on policy matters, and a survey of the unique communication challenges that arise in a crisis situation. These include changes in the way audiences process information under stress, the demands placed on an institution and its leaders by the news media, and the growing influence and opportunity presented by social media.The session will include tips on how communicators can best develop, refine, and convey desired messages to specific audiences and to the public.

1:15 ­ 2:30 pm

Senior

SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Solution Discussion Leader: David E. Lynch, Research Administrator, Research Administrative Services, Mayo Clinic Rochester

Clinical Trial Negotiations with Foreign Industry Sponsors: Strategies International projects can offer an exciting and rewarding addition to the research activities of many institutions. It requires proper planning, preparation and support but the opportunities for growth for many investigators and your research team can be enormous. This includes understanding the proposal process, budgeting, language and cultural barriers, travel, local laws, and contract concerns. Do you have best practices for facilitating and managing the negotiation of externally funded foreign clinical trials? If yes, or even if you are just looking and have creative ideas then plan to join this solution discussion as we focus our efforts toward identifying those best practices that lead to increased efficiencies, improved processes and a better understanding. Plan to share your concerns, thoughts, and your solutions!

42

Clinical

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

1:15 ­ 2:30 pm SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

center rules and regulations. Participants of this session will become familiar with the differences between a specialized service facility and other service centers and discuss how these differences can impact an institution's service center policy, share problems and solutions related to the formation and operation of service centers, identify common mistakes that occur when developing rates and offer best practices for rate calculation, exchange ideas on how to implement processes and procedures for effective oversight of service centers and the approval of service center rates. Solution Discussion Leaders: Nuala C. McGowan, Sponsored Research Administrator, Harvard University; Patrick W. Fitzgerald, Associate Dean for Research Administration, Harvard University Recharge Centers: Operation and Rate Setting What is a "recharge center," and how is it supposed to operate? Is there a difference between a `recharge' center and a `service' center? Is there a difference between a `specialized' service center and a `service' center and, if so, what is the difference? How do I calculate the rates for a recharge or service center, and what are the rules that govern the calculation of recharge center rates? Who is responsible for monitoring recharge center activity and operations? These are some of the questions which will be answered in this introduction to recharge centers session. Additionally, we will examine some of the pitfalls to avoid in calculating and applying recharge center rates and will present findings from federal audits of non-compliance with recharge A Discussion with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Attracting funding for the humanities is often a big challenge for research administrators who want the entire academic community involved in the research enterprise.This interactive session will allow research administrators and the NEH to exchange ideas and discuss methods of providing higher quality proposals to the NEH and the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA). Also, the participants will discuss other sources of liberal arts funding and see how those sources can be leveraged with NEH and the NEA. If you work with the arts this is a discussion group worth attending. Social Networking 2010: Facebook, LinkedIn,Twitter. How are These Social Networking Tools Changing the Way We Communicate? This session will review some of the main features of Facebook, LinkedIn,Twitter. A discussion will be centered on how these sites are changing the way we communicate. Participants will become familiar with social networking tools such as Facebook,Twitter, and LinkedIN, and gain insight into how to manage their privacy settings for three social networking tools. Can You Hear Me Now? Navigating Through Cross-Cultural Communications In today's workplace we interact, both verbally and nonverbally, with a diverse group of individuals. Through communication, we have the opportunity to express our thoughts and ideas, however, if the message is not received, than our goal is not achieved. In today's multi-cultural workplace we must accept that one's culture is the basis for their communication style. Through an interactive solution discussion, we will explore cross cultural communications and how to navigate as we interact and negotiate with our colleagues around the globe.

Departmental

Solution Discussion Leader: Russell Wyland, Assistant Director, Division of Research Programs, National Endowment for the Humanities

Federal

Human Capital

Solution Discussion Leaders: Anita Mills, Associate Director for Research Administration Training & Institutional Liaison, Office of Research Services, New York University; Dennis J. Paffrath, Executive Director for Research Administration, University of Maryland, Baltimore

Solution Discussion Leader: Lealie M. Perry, Contracts Associate, Johns Hopkins University

Human Capital

* Lead Presenter

43

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

1:15 ­ 2:30 pm

Industry

SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leader:

The University-Industry Demonstration Partnership Round table session on the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership (UIDP) to discuss the contemporary issues affecting relations and the UIDPs current initiatives.

Assisting Faculty in Finding Funding Opportunities Finding funding opportunities in both the public and private sector requires patience, good humor and a thorough knowledge of online resources. In this solution discussion, we will provide an overview of various on-line resources (subscription and nonsubscription) and provide tips and hints to formulate successful funding searches. Minority Institutions Funding: Creating True Partnerships

Pre-award

Solution Discussion Leaders: Kathryn M. Coughlin, Director of Research Development, Faculty of Arts & Sciences, RAS, Harvard University; Susan O'Connor Gomes, Research Development Officer for Science, Harvard University

Solution Discussion Leader: Theresa L. Bailey, Director of Research and Sponsored Projects, University of Texas - Pan American

Pre-award Challenges Implementing New Accounting Systems Our world is ever evolving with new electronic systems popping up almost daily. We all want to use the latest/greatest systems, but with those systems come lots of challenges. The systems have to be tested, integrated with old systems and maintained. Is Research Administration Evolving? Why and into What? In the opinion of the Session Team, the answer to the first question is clearly "yes". It is the second question that we will spend our time examining with our attendees. For example, are research administrators electronic system designers? Are we professional trainers? How do we manage sponsored program risks? How do research administrators manage work hours and location? How close is too close when working with business and industry? The Session Team will discuss these topics and others suggested by participants. The goal of this session is for attendees to leave with "food for thought" to help their institutions with strategic planning for research administration service delivery.

Post-award

Solution Discussion Leader: Mona Weer, Financial Manager, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs,The University of Montana

Solution Discussion Leaders: Garrett R. Sanders, Assistant Vice President for Research, Research Foundation of SUNY; David M. Bond, Director of Sponsored Research Services, Rochester Institute of Technology; Pamela A.Webb, Associate Vice President for Research, University of Minnesota

1:15 ­ 5:00 pm

SENIOR FORUMS See page 86 for details. Pre-registration required. No additional fee.

2:30 ­ 2:45 pm

REFRESHMENT BREAK

44

Senior

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Learning Objectives: · Participants will engage in discussions on policy considerations for an institutional conflict of interest policy. · Participants will learn how institutions have implemented and administered conflict-of-interest policies. · Participants will learn of resources to assist institutions in developing an insitutional conflict-of-interest policy. Prerequisites: Participants should be experienced in conflict of interest administration and management, and be in a position to develop or influence institutional policy. Gunta J. Liders*, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Rochester; Carol J. Blum, Director, Research Compliance and Administration, Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) Training Grants from Start-Up to Close Out Program Level: Basic This session will offer an overview of NIH training grants: types of awards; preparation of grant applications; post-award activities such as selecting participants, managing funds, no-cost extensions and carryovers; renewal applications; and close out requirements. Learning Objectives: Participants will understand the components of the NIH training grants. Glenda A. Bullock*, Manager of Financial Operations,Washington University in St. Louis; Beckie Chamberlin, Senior Grants Management Specialist, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health Developing an Institutional Conflict-of-Interest Policy Program Level: Advanced While not (yet) required by our federal sponsors, the development of an institutional conflict-of-interest policy has been recommended by university associations, legislators and other interested parties. Join your colleagues for an informal, yet informative, discussion on where to start if you are just developing a policy, institutional considerations, structures for the oversight of institutional conflict of interest, effective practices, and lessons learned.

Departmental

Compliance

Top 10 Things I Wish I Had Known about NSF Grant Accounting Program Level: Overview 1. Institution Statistics... You're not alone! 2. System Updates: Why they take so long... 3. Research.gov: Use it! And we will show you how... 4. Cash on Hand:Tips and Pointers on Reconciling and other common issues that cause discrepancies. 5. How to fix a mistake on a cash request ­ There are options! 6. Have questions? We are here to help! Here are a few little known things we can do to assist you in the post-award financial management of your awards... 7. Have new staff? Having problems completing the quarterly FFR or reconciling your cash? There are resources available... 8. Federal Appropriations: How and why "Canceling Appropriations" can cause institutions to lose funding... 9. Using the Federal Financial Report (FFR) at the end of the Federal Fiscal Year to report on canceling awards. 10. 2009 Grantee Survey:What NSF learned from you! What NSF would like to do in the future...

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain insights from an institution perspective of NSF and federal grants. · Participants will learn about solutions to common issues that many institutions face during the post-award financial administration of their NSF awards. · Participants will understand what resources are available to them from NSF. Jeremy A. Leffler*, Outreach Specialist, Policy Office, Division of Institution & Award Support, Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management, National Science Foundation; Mike Howe, Section Head, Grantee Cash Management Section, Division of Financial Management, National Science Foundation; Justin Poll, Senior Grant and Contract Officer, Research Operations, Arizona State University on IPA (Intergovernmental Personnel Act) assignment at the National Science Foundation

Federal/Post-Award

* Lead Presenter

45

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn how backward design methods can improve accurate, relevant and timely content creation and delivery. · Participants will learn how to distill an extremely complex topic like Export Control into Established Goals, with a Performance Task and Learning activities. · Participants will understand the relationship between EAR/ITAR and the Fundamental Research Exclusion(FRE) Garrett Steed, Training Program Manager, Georgia Institute of Technology Triple Helix: How Government, Universities, Industry and Academia Come Together: Different Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Best Practices Program Level: Basic Niels Weertman*, Director of Product Development Academic & Government, Elsevier; James J. Casey, Jr., Director of Contracts and Industrial Agreements, University of Texas, San Antonio Designing Export Control Training using the Backward Design Model Program Level: This session will review the backward design methodology used to create mandatory Export Control training for all individuals on a project with a Technology Control Plan (TCP). This presentation will review several of the Export Control slides used in the mandatory training. General Industry

International Research Contracts Program Level: Advanced International research contracts have complexities that go above and beyond those found in domestic research contracting. Often, it is not just the clauses that are in the contract that need to be negotiated, but those that are not in the contract but should be. Join the session to learn about the contractual risks inherent in international contracts, and strategies for identify and contain risks associated with them. We will discuss everything from budgeting and other financial considerations to insurance, intellectual property (patenting) and a host of other nonfinancial compliance issues, that if not dealt with in the contract negotiation, may end up biting your institution later on down the road.. This concurrent session complements concurrent sessions: "Unique Legal and Practical Issues Arising in International Collaborations" and "International Collaborations" and "Developing International Projects:The Role of the Research Administrator"

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn financial and nonfinancial issues unique to International research contracts · Participants will learn specific laws and regulations impacting international research contracts · Participants will learn about institutional best practices to succeed in international research contracting Pre-requisites: Participants should have experience in dealing with negotiating international contracts with a basic understanding of why these types of agreements are different to negotiate and to administer. David Brady*, Director, Export and Secure Research Compliance, Virginia Tech; Jennifer Ponting, Esq., Senior Contracts Manager, Columbia Technology Ventures

46

International

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will recognize the importance of the investigator's relational skills as key to success in sponsored research. · Participants will discuss reasons why program officers welcome inquiries from proposal writers. · Participants will list critical aspects of grant programs that do not appear in published materials and will be able to coach researchers on how to start and maintain a productive dialogue with a program officer. Prerequisites: Participants should have practical experience working with proposal writers. Robert Porter*, Director, Research Development, University of Tennessee; Anne S. Geronimo, Director of Research Development, University of Maryland College Park Can We Talk: Contacting Grant Program Officers Program Level: Intermediate A critical skill in grantsmanship is the ability to establish an effective line of communication with a program officer prior to writing the proposal. Pre-proposal communications can have a powerful impact on the researcher's thinking, from reshaping the research design to rethinking where the proposal should be submitted, or if it should be written at all. But for researchers new to the game, the prospect of initiating contact with an official in a funding agency can be intimidating. Some typical concerns are: How will I be received? Is it really legitimate to discuss my project before I've submitted a proposal? Can I be specific enough to be credible? This session will describe the steps necessary to start and maintain a productive dialogue. A sample coaching script will be provided that research administrators can use to assist investigators in this critical process. Grants.gov ­ An Alternative Submission Process. Is a System-to-System Application in Your Future? Program Level: Basic Grants.gov started with the `PureEdge' viewer, then progressed to an Adobe solution and now have draft plans for a "next generation" application process for Grants.gov. A growing number of institutions are supporting an alternative application process that lessens the impact of these changes on research faculty and staff. This alternative is known as "S2S" (System-to-System). S2S shields investigators from changes in the application software. Commercial vendors, community-source software, and home-grown systems all provide solutions that have been successfully implemented. Join us as we discuss necessary investments and expected outcomes of an S2S application process. A recent poll conducted by the Federal Demonstration Partnership indicates that over 82% of research institutions have considered investing in an S2S solution citing a number of advantages: 1) Support research faculty and staff, 2) Provide consistent and accurate information to the sponsor, 3) Standardization of proposal development, approvals, and document workflow, 4) Integration with internal research management systems, 5) Allows cloning of proposals, automatic data input, and collaborative proposal development by more than one concurrent user. These advantages are offset by: 1) The cost of such systems,2) Grants.gov is not mandatory for all federal agencies, 3) Agencies using Grants.gov do not consistently utilize the data. Participants will evaluate their own institution's potential value in implementing an S2S application process.

Pre-award

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain insight into the investments made by other institutions implementing an S2S solution. · Participants will discuss distinct advantages in using an S2S solution. · Participants will complete a decision tree to help decide if an S2S solution is in their future. Susan G. Ross*, Director, Evanston Campus, Office for Sponsored Research, Northwestern University; Stephen D. Dowdy, Director, Research Information & Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ron Splittgerber, Director, Research Services, Colorado State University

Pre-award

* Lead Presenter

47

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about risk assessment and how to develop a risk management plan. · Participants will understand unique compliance issues in international collaborations. · Participants will gain insight into agreement issues typical of international sub-recipient agreements. Marjorie Forster*, Assistant Vice President for Research, University of Maryland Baltimore; Janet B. Simons, Director, Research Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore International Sub-recipient Awards Program Level: Advanced Are you responsible for issuing or managing international subrecipient agreements? If so, then you know they have interesting twists and turns. This session is for administrators experienced with international collaborations. We will delve into the complexities of risk assessment, managing compliance issues, currency exchange fluctuations, monitoring deliverables and invoices, restricted party screening, and other unique situations and issues that arise as the result of an international collaboration. We will present true life examples of circumstances and challenges you may confront as you work with international sub-recipients. Research Marketing and Communications: Showcasing Research Program Level: Advanced Effective communications and marketing strategies are critically important as universities endeavor to enhance their research volume, impact and visibility. These strategies to promote the research enterprise enable the recruitment of excellent faculty and students, encourage greater alumni involvement, provide for better integration with funding agencies, enhanced support from State policy makers, and stronger partnerships with industry, Foundations, and Federal Labs. Enhanced visibility also impacts university rankings. In the past few years, funding agencies have also begun to require universities to communicate more effectively about research accomplishments in order to justify Federal investments. This session will discuss research communications and marketing strategies and initiatives carried out on the school and universitywide levels. We will also discuss the perspective from a former funding agency official on effective communications with Congress and other key constituencies.

Post-award

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about the key role marketing and communications plays in an effective research enterprise. · Participants will gain insights about effective research communications strategies to use with many key constituencies, both internal and external to the campus. Prerequisites: Participants should have some working knowledge of basic communications and marketing strategies. Ken Gertz*, Associate Vice President for Research Development, University of Maryland College Park; Curt Suplee, Director of Communications, Joint Quantum Institute and Physics Frontier Center, University of Maryland; Former Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, National Science Foundation.; Jim McMenimen, Assistant Dean of Communications, James Clarke School of Engineering, University of Maryland

48

Senior

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

subjects and care for the welfare of the animals used in addressing important human and animal health questions. Some recent evidence suggests that accreditation does in fact result in fewer problems and breaches of compliance. Federal inspectors continue to find fewer problems in research conducted by investigators at organizations accredited for their HRPP by AAHRPP than in research conducted by investigators at nonaccredited organizations according to an ongoing project conducted by AAHRPP. While data is available for only two years the trend is holding that investigators from accredited organizations perform better in an FDA inspection than those from nonaccredited organizations (source: Clinical Investigator List, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 2008 and 2009). Solution Discussion Leaders: William S. Mellon, Associate Dean,The Graduate School & Professor of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin Madison; Moira Keane, Executive Director Human Subjects Protection, University of Minnesota; Eric Sandgren, Associate Professor and Director, Research Animal Resource Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison Solution Discussion Leaders: Roseann L. Luongo, Sponsored Programs Officer and Manager, Harvard University; Kimberly A. Hesse, Associate Director of Finance, Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health; Kathleen Sullivan, Senior International Grant Manager, Harvard School of Public Health; Elizabeth Lennox, Director of Administration, Harvard School of Public Health Does Accreditation of Human and Animal Protection Programs Ensure Compliance University research programs involving the use of human subjects and animals are governed by a variety of policies including those local university and state rules as well as federal regulations where federal funds are supporting the research activities. In addition, most institutions opt to have their human research protection program and animal care and use program accredited by an external accrediting agency. This solution discussion will address whether accreditation improves outcomes, ask if advantages occur due to accreditation and finally provide approaches that begin to make compliance more the "norm". While guidance, rules, and regulations are aimed at ensuring compliance a structure needs to be in place that continually emphasizes and re-enforces the research policies that lead to compliant behavior. Thus the first advantage of an accreditation process comes from the internal-self evaluation that each institution conducts to prepare for the accreditation review. This enhances the level of "awareness" by researchers of the policies and procedures and acts as a reminder of the salient features necessary to carry out excellent research and protect human Cultivating the Departmental and Central Relationship:Tips to Promote Strong Working Relationships among Departmental, School, and Central Administrators This interactive discussion will encourage discussion on different strategies for fostering collaboration among departmental, school and central administration. This session will build on the concepts presented in the Cultivating the Departmental and Central Relationship session from Monday and provide an opportunity for the group to share their own experiences. RCR While each discipline and type of research may emphasize different aspects of educational components, there are core topics essential for all areas of research but what does that mean to us as research administrators? Where do we fit in when it comes to the monitoring and oversight of RCR programs? This solution discussion will look at how institutions are dealing with the implementation of RCR educational initiatives.

Departmental

Compliance

Federal

Solution Discussion Leaders: Denise J. Clark, Assistant Vice President for Research Administration and Advancement, University of Maryland College Park; Brian N. Squilla, Director of Administration & Finance, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

* Lead Presenter

49

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leader: Elise Fritz, Senior Meetings Coordinator, National Council of University Research Administrators NCURA Green Office Practices: How to Translate These to Greening Your Campus As Research Administrators, you try to "do the right thing" everyday. Does that include being "Green" on your campus and in your office? How truly "Green" is your campus? Do you have a recycling program? Does your campus and office follow the 3 R's...Reduce, Recycle, Reuse? What green practices are in place at your campus? Over the last few years, NCURA's National Office has taken many steps toward becoming greener, and implemented these ideas in everything from our national meetings to our day-today lives in the office. This discussion will give you tips and ideas to reduce your campus's carbon footprint and increase sustainability. We will discuss practical and timely solutions you can take away to implement in your office, NCURA regional meetings, as well as the steps to approaching this initiative campus-wide. If there are any areas related to this topic you would like included in the discussion, please send an email to [email protected] The Career Ladder - Climbing the Ladder, but Struggling with the Balance of Taking on Extra Projects and How to Say 'NO' Politely Discussion will focus on moving up the "career ladder" while balancing personal life and professional career. Setting and achieving long and short-term professional goals during challenging economic times. How to select the right mentor, manage personal and professional stress, and when and how to say "no" to additional work and projects without jeopardizing career advancement opportunities. Culture and Conditions: How Do We Negotiate Terms that Work for both Universities and Industry Solution session contract negotiation with industry. Focus on the specific language that works and other effective negotiation tools and tactics.

General

Human Capital

Solution Discussion Leader: Deborah Moore, Associate Director, Procurement & Research Services, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Maggie Griscavage, Director, Office of Grants & Contracts Administration, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Solution Discussion Leader: Randall Draper, Director, Office of Contracts and Grants, University of Colorado at Boulder

Industry

50

International

Working with Institutional Satellite Offices More and more often, institutions are required to manage programs which are based at sites remote from campus. The resulting creation of Satellite Offices, often in other countries, presents an array of new problems, opportunities, risks and needs for which our campus-based processes and policies are inadequate or incompatible. This solution discussion will explore ways to work effectively with satellites to ensure minimal risk and maximum research success.

Solution Discussion Leaders: Cheryl-lee Howard, Assistant Provost for Research Administration, Johns Hopkins University; Sunanda Holmes, Global Compliance Officer, Johns Hopkins University; Frank Barker, Export Control Officer, Johns Hopkins University

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

2:45 ­ 3:45 pm

Negotiation Tools Pre-award

SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leader: Wilma "Winnie" G. Ennenga, Director of Grant and Contract Services, Northern Arizona University

Cost Transfers and Effort Reporting This session is for central administrators responsible for managing the effort reporting process or for approving payroll cost transfers at their institution.We will have a discussion of best practices for managing these processes efficiently without compromising compliance. University Export Management System Implementation Challenges We will look to address topics such as: 1) How do you develop and implement your export controls training program? Common issues include whether mandatory, length, format (online/in person), focused training, modular training (basics, travel, shipping, research) 2) How do you train your Empowered Official? Common issues include: Do you have an EO, amount of training, amount of "daily hands on", previous experience, where in the reporting lines is the EO appropriately positioned. 3) What are the biggest obstacles to implementing your Export Management System? Common obstacles are decentralization, information collection, visibility, top down management buy-in, compare BIS EMS guidelines.

Post-award

Solution Discussion Leader: Lynn Kingsley, Director, Cost Analysis and Studies, University of Maryland Baltimore

4) Developing and managing Technical Assistance Agreements. 5) Developing Technology Control Plans -- Issues can be frequency of training, minimum requirements, adequacy of records, acceptable cyber security, back up management, cleaning crews, etc. 6) What reporting lines are appropriate for an initial Export Compliance Office? Why and how might it evolve? Some Export Compliance efforts begin in Sponsored Research and evolve into their own office, or move to General Counsel, or Compliance ­ Benefits and burdens to both approaches. Solution Discussion Leaders: Marcia Williams, Assistant Director, Export Compliance,Vanderbilt University; John T. Childress, Director, Division of Sponsored Research,Vanderbilt University; David Erem, Manager, Industry Agreements, University of Kentucky

3:45 ­ 4:00 pm

REFRESHMENT BREAK

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm

Senior

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Learning Objectives: Participants will learn how to mitigate financial and compliance risks through assessing the feasibility of a proposed clinical trial, including evaluating the approaches for budget development and negotiation; improving the oversight afforded to the financial aspects of a clinical trial during the life of the trial and ensuring the close-out process also serves as an oversight control. Prerequisites: Participants should have basic knowledge of and experience with clinical trials and clinical trial budgets. Cheryl K.Williams*, Assistant Director, Office of Research & Project Administration, University of Rochester; Michale Ritz, Research Compliance Officer, University of Rochester

Improving the Effectiveness of Clinical Trials Financial Management Program Level: Intermediate If you administer clinical trials, you undoubtedly understand that successful financial management of such trials is not easy. The University of Rochester is in the process of assessing best practices (internal and external) for this area of specialized knowledge. In this session, key aspects of clinical trial financial administration will be discussed with suggestions of how to achieve the underlying business and compliance objectives of clinical trials.

Clinical

* Lead Presenter

51

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn to quickly spot the compliance issues in contracts and subcontracts that affect their University. · Participants will learn what compliance issues are problematic, which ones can be negotiated, and which ones cannot, and how they should be approached by contract administrators. · Participants will learn effective ways to work with their PI's during contract compliance review. Marianne Rinaldo Woods*, Senior Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Texas at San Antonio; Lauren Wilson, Senior Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Programs,The University of Alabama Skill and Career Development for Research Administrators Program Level: Intermediate There are many traits of a successful Departmental Research Administrator, yet there is no clear career track to and through Departmental Research Administration. In this session, we will present what makes a DRA so valuable and how a DRA can increase their value with additional experience and training.The panel will cover best practices of Research Administration at the Departmental level including Pre- and Post-award, Purchasing, Personnel, and building strong relationships with faculty and other administrative offices on campus.We will explore how one can consider a career path that may move in and out of the department and the wide variety of career opportunities that are available. In a follow-up solution discussion, we will focus on the best and the worst traits of the DRA and how to find career growth within the department or where to find it outside the department.We will also provide and share: tools for managing life in the trenches of the DRA world, useful tips and secrets in managing the balance of the evergrowing workload, and the organizational skills that are key to success. STAR METRICS (Science and Technology in America's Reinvestment ­ Measuring the Effects of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science) Program Level: Overview The STAR METRICS program is a broad partnership of Federal Science and Technology funding agencies and universities, led by OSTP, NIH and NSF. It has a shared vision to develop data infrastructures and products to support evidence based analyses of Science and Technology returns on investment, as well as to inform policy making. The goal of the STAR METRICS Program is to utilize existing administrative data from Federal agencies and their grantee institutions, and match them with existing research databases on economic, scientific and social outcomes. This session will provide a hands on demonstration of the STAR METRICS approach, with a detailed discussion of what is involved in the development of automated job creation estimates from existing records. It will also introduce the next steps necessary to implement STAR METRICS Phase II to capture the broader impacts of science investments.

* Lead Presenter

Compliance Issues in Reviewing Contract Proposals Program Level: Intermediate What are the compliance issues related to contract proposals and do they differ from compliance issues related to grant proposals? How does a contract administrator identify these issues and what can they do about them? This concurrent session will discuss those issues.

Compliance

Learning Objectives: · Participants will examine the learning opportunities for a DRA, including degrees and certifications. · Participants will focus on the true key to success: building good relationships. Samantha J.Westcott*, Grant Manager, Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology; Brian N. Squilla, Director of Administration & Finance, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania; Michele M. Codd, Assistant Director-Institute for Software Integrated Systems,Vanderbilt University

Departmental

Learning Objectives: · Participants will understand how standardized queries/dropin code can be generated to produce automated reports and will understand how to use the tables and graphs that are generated by STAR METRICS to aid their ARRA reporting. · Participants will understand how to use the tables and graphs that are generated by STAR METRICS to aid their reporting to their stakeholders, such as state legislators, alumni, and trustees and will learn about the development of broader metrics of science impact, such as patents, publications, citations and workforce outcomes. · Participants will engage in a dialog with STAR METRICS staff about new metrics development. Julia Lane*, Program Director Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP), National Science Foundation; Stefano Bertuzzi, Office of the Director, Office of Science Policy, National Institutes of Health

52

Federal

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Pamela Napier*, Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, Western Kentucky University; Vincent Oragwan, Director of Grants & Contracts, California State University-Bakersfield How Do We Monitor Compliance When We Don't Have a Compliance Officer and We Don't Know Who's Doing What? This session was developed by the PUI Neighborhood Committee in response to concerns raised by its members about the volume of compliance issues that accompany federal awards; many PUIs do not have compliance officers and monitoring compliance defaults to the sponsored research office. If this situation sounds all too familiar, this session is for you whether you are at a PUI or not. Go to the PUI neighborhood library page and download the Risk Assessment, Compliance and Implementation Plan (<http://www.ncura.edu/content/regions_and_neighborhoods/neigh borhoods/predominantly_undergrad/library/) originally developed by Julie Cole, Julie Norris, Jane Youngers, Frances Jeffries, and Beth Olsen. The presenters will each go through the matrix and review the various compliance requirements and how they monitor them (or not, as the case may be), highlight problem areas, and discuss what they are doing to resolve these issues. Members of the PUI neighborhood committee will attend the session and speak about their compliance experiences and we will open the floor to a global discussion of monitoring compliance. Small Business Subcontracting: Plans and Reporting FAR Clause 52.219.9 mandates the development of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) for Federal Contracts with costs in excess of $550,000. In most cases, the SBSP must be submitted as part of the response to the contract solicitation. The proposed SBSP must be accepted and approved by the contracting officer before the contract can be awarded and is incorporated into the awarded contract. The creation of the SBSP includes the development of separate and distinct goals for purchases from each category of small businesses (small, small disadvantaged, women owned, HUB Zone, veteran owned and disabled veteran owned). Twice per year, the contractor is obligated to report on their achievements as measured against those goals. This session will explain the process of creating the plan, provide helpful hints and tools for the creation of the plan and walk attendees through the post award reporting process using eSRS, the federal government's electronic reporting system. This session could be helpful for pre-award, post-award and department administrators, depending on who accepts responsibility for these activities at each institution.

General

Brenda Kavanaugh*, Assistant Director, Office of Research and Project Administration, University of Rochester

General

* Lead Presenter

53

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn some of the pitfalls consultants encounter as they build their customer base. · Participants will understand some of the issues that need to be managed as their consulting business grows. · Participants will learn some of the questions they should ask themselves before they leave their "day job" to become a consultant. Pam B.Whitlock*, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, University of North Carolina at Wilmington (retired); Christina Hansen, Assistant Vice Chancellor (retired) University of California, Irvine and Higher Education Consultant Consulting in Research Administration Program Level: Overview It must be the dream of research administrators to be a consultant! Many people dream of leaving their day job behind and trying something more exciting. It's got to be more fun than trying to accommodate grumpy faculty, ever changing sponsor processes and procedures while still keeping the auditors happy. Just walk in and tell other people how they should do things and leave. Piece of cake! Think again, dreamer. Come hear two recent retirees from RA share their experiences in getting started in the consulting business. They will share the good and the not so good experiences and issues. Never fear, the names of the innocent (and not so innocent) organizations will remain anonymous. Planning ahead, scheduling, balancing life and work, and staying organized are all topics that will be touched upon. Bring your questions and we'll try to respond to them. This session will provide an overview of the pleasures and frustrations inherent in working as a consultant in the research administration field. Managing International Projects: Partnerships across Borders Program Level: Advanced Our faculty have formed international collaborations with colleagues in established and developing nations.These international collaborative projects and internationally funded sponsored projects can be challenges to manage in a collegial and effective manner. This session will provide the attendee with helpful ways to manage international grants and contracts and highlight some of the pitfalls to avoid.

Human Capital

International

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of the issues surrounding the management of international programs. · Participants will exchange ideas and strategies on how to manage international programs Pre-requisites: This session is intended for senior level central and college research administrators who have experience in the administration of international agreements or are institutions with an emerging international sponsored research portfolio. Thomas E.Wilson*, Assistant Vice President/Senior Research Administrator, Rush University Medical Center; Omar el Farouk Boukhris, QNRF Award Administration Manager, Qatar National Research Fund

Implementing Electronic Proposal Routing Systems Program Level: Basic Is your organization considering automated options for preparing, routing and submitting research proposals? Join this session for an overview of the process utilized by one university to select, design, and implement an electronic proposal routing system, including the important lessons learned.

Learning Objectives: · Participants will be able to list key software selection criteria. · Participants will assess the most successful techniques for implementing automated solutions and business process changes. · Participants will be able to identify mitigation strategies for common challenges faced with large-scale system implementations. Cathy Handyside*, Senior Project Manager, Research Administration Systems, University of Michigan; Higher Education Consultant

54

Pre-award

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will obtain a basic understanding of the development of the facilities and administrative rate; · Participants will become familiar with the different F&A cost pools and the rate bases and will obtain an understanding of the concepts of allocation. Cathy Snyder*, Director, Contract and Grant Accounting,Vanderbilt University; Jim Carter, Director, Huron Consulting Group Primer on Indirect Cost Program Level: Basic Would you like a basic understanding of what a facilities and administrative (F&A) cost rate (previously referred to as indirect cost rate) is and why it is important? Whether you are a departmental administrator, faculty member, or new to the cost accounting world, this session is for you. We will focus on the general concepts of OMB Circular A-21 of cost allocation and the development of each F&A cost pool. The session will also cover the direct cost base, the impact of cost sharing on F&A rates, and consistent costing.

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm

Post-award

SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Solution Discussion Leaders: Janet B. Simons, Director, Research Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore; Jane Tolbert, Project Manager, Cardiac Safety Services, Quintiles

Sponsor/CRO Relationships: Working Through the Layers Pharmaceutical companies partner with Clinical Research Organizations (CROs) to manage a wide range of clinical trial activities. How does it affect you as a research administrator when a CRO is involved with a clinical study at your institution? What are the roles of the CRO and Sponsor? How do they interact with each other and with the institution and investigator? Come prepared to discuss issues that impact your ability to negotiate the clinical study agreement, to manage the trial or to track payments. This session will identify best practices as well as pitfalls to avoid when dealing with the CRO. Information Technologies and Compliance: Is Investing in New Systems Worth It? As research compliance grows more complex, we often look to electronic systems to solve all of our problems. Going electronic, we believe, will allow units to seamlessly communicate and coordinate activities, encourage investigators to better manage their time and projects, and promote compliance through user-friendly systems. But how realistic are our expectations? What happens when the faculty resist the solution you've chosen? Is building it yourself a good idea or a resource-wasting disaster? Discuss your experiences and share your solutions as we explore the issues related to IT and compliance. Navigating Stem Cell Regulation

Clinical

Solution Discussion Leader: Elizabeth Boyd, Assistant Vice President for Research Compliance, University of Arizona

Compliance

Solution Discussion Leaders: Genevieve Saphier, Associate Director for Research Policy and Compliance, Harvard University; Kathryn Link, Executive Director, Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard University

Departmental

* Lead Presenter

55

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm

Federal

SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leader: Jerry G. Fife, Vice Chancellor for Administration,Vanderbilt University

NSF Labor Effort Audits ­ What We Can Learn From Them Do you have questions about the NSF Labor Effort Audits or would you like to share your experience with others? Come join this informal session where we'll discuss the audits and the lessons learned. Working with Congress An informal opportunity for participants to share issues, concerns, successes, and approaches in communicating with Congressional Delegations. Possible topics; political neutrality, staff importance, DC visits, campus visits, Federal Agenda, Agency budgets, legislation impacting education, and the role of lobbyists. Of Course I Work More Than 100%! Faculty Time and Effort Reporting Most of us deal with effort reporting at some level, and we know how complicated it is for our faculty and research staff to understand. In fact, sometimes we barely understand it ourselves. How do we help faculty recognize what effort reporting is (other than a headache)? How do we help faculty appreciate why we have to do it in the first place? How do you answer the question,"What if I go to a remote cabin all by myself on vacation? It's my time. Can I write my proposal then?" Join us as we discuss strategies that might make effort reporting more understandable to the people we serve, regardless of the shape or size of our institutions. Are you Living a Solitary Life - Developing Infrastructure in the Smaller Institution Whether your office is a one-, two-, or multi-person organization, most PUIs are administering sponsored programs "creatively." We rally troops who answer to other people. We hope the auditor is distracted by some personal issue. We wrangle with questions like "which position should I request?" and "what function could I justify successfully?" Then there is the delicate challenge of campaigning for another office to improve or expand its services. When the tensions aren't stressful enough for our liking, we might ask ourselves,"just how DOES an administrator suggest to the provost that promotion policy or F&A distribution is in need of an extreme makeover?"

Federal

Solution Discussion Leader: Allen R. Soltow, Vice President for Research,The University of Tulsa; Judy L. Fredenberg, Director, Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Montana

Solution Discussion Leaders: Diane Barrett, Associate Dean for Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Christa Johnson, Associate Dean for Research, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville

General

Learning Objectives: · To expand our view of what infrastructure can entail at a PUI · To identify priorities among the many competing claims for our resources · To review strategies to communicate our message to campus decision makers and to recruit their advocacy · To analyze the relative advantages of different kinds of staff depending on your own strengths and functional gaps. Solution Discussion Leaders: Christa C. Johnson, Associate Dean for Research,The Graduate School Southern Illinois University Edwardsville; Cindy White, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, Belmont University

General

In this interactive session, we will swap solutions, share ideas that turned out to be dogs, and provide reactions to all our budding strategies for building effective and supportive infrastructure for scholarship and sponsored projects.

56

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

4:00 ­ 5:00 pm SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leaders: Theresa C. Hollister, Senior Grant and Contract Administrator, Office of Sponsored Programs, Binghamton University; Candyce C. Lindsay, Senior Research Policy Officer, Office of Knowledge Enterprise Development, Arizona State University Non-violent Communication: Connecting People through Compassion, not Contention Nonviolent Communication, also known as Compassionate Communication, is a communication process, a set of tools, and a model for living that helps us respond to many of life's more challenging, confrontational situations with empathy, compassion and humanity. In this session we will examine the impact speech has on us and others in shaping our experiences and relationships and how the Non-violent Communication process is used to facilitate genuine connection and understanding between human beings in a variety of situations. Participants will be given practical tools and resources on how to handle difficult situations or disagreements with respect, compassion, and clarity. International Collaborations Issues - A Follow-up Solution Discussion This solution discussion is a follow-up to the concurrent session Tuesday 10:30 am-Noon entitled: Unique Practical and Legal Issues Arising in International Collaborations. solution discussion leaders will present case studies for participants to evaluate and discuss. Foundation Funding & Beyond: Creative Tips in Research Development The Madoff fraud and the current global financial crisis pose unique challenges to finding foundation funding for faculty. This solution discussion will explore tools and tips for expanding a foundation funding search beyond an initial prospect list.Tools and tips include on-line open-source resources, using social network theory to develop leads for lesser-known family foundations and developing funding strategies for academic research. F&A Distribution: Different Models, Challenges, and Opportunities Many institutions employ different approaches to sharing facilities and administrative cost recovery revenue.This solution discussion will explore some of the different models that are employed, some of the rationales that guide the development of F&A distribution policies, and some of the challenges and opportunities different F&A distribution models have presented.

Human Capital

International

Solution Discussion Leaders: David Brady, Director, Export and Secure Research Compliance,Virginia Tech; William Ferreira, Attorney, Hogan Lovells US LLP

Solution Discussion Leader: Kathryn M. Coughlin, Director of Research Development, Faculty of Arts & Sciences, RAS, Harvard University

Pre-award

Solution Discussion Leader: Roger Wareham, Director, Grants Development Office, University of Minnesota, Morris

7:00 ­ 11:30 pm

SOUL SOURCE AND THE NO-COST EXTENSIONS, FAREWELL TOUR The traditional Tuesday night event will begin in the ballroom at 9 p.m. for the 21st anniversary of NCURA's own house band the Soul Source and the No-cost Extensions. Come rock to "Got Your F&A Right Here!" and many more rock and roll favorites. Many of us have grown up as research administrators listening and dancing to this group over the last 20 years. Sadly, as all good things must come to an end, this will be Soul Source's Farewell Tour. Join us as we thank these talented colleagues and friends for their dedication to our entertainment these last two decades, and wish them the best.

Post-award

9:00 pm

REGIONAL HOSPITALITY SUITES OPEN

* Lead Presenter

57

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

7:30 am ­ Noon

COMMUTER LOUNGE

7:30 am ­ Noon

ONSITE SERVICES DESK OPEN

7:30 ­ 8:30 am

ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING BREAKFAST

8:30 ­ 10:00 am

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Suzanne Liv Page*, Director, University of Miami School of Medicine

Subject Injury in Clinical Trials: What is the Latest and Greatest Program Level: Basic Clinical Strategies for Complying with NSF and NIH Requirements for RCR Education Program Level: Intermediate Education and training in the responsible conduct of research has been required since 1990 for NIH-funded National Research Service Award (NRSA) Award Institutional Training Programs. In 2000, NIH expanded this requirement to require RCR instruction for "staff at the institution who have direct and substantive involvement in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research, or who receive research training supported by PHS funds or who otherwise work on the PHS-supported research project even if the individual does not receive PHS support." This expanded requirement was later rescinded, but NIH expanded its support for research on research integrity. Now, NSF has implemented a new certification requirement "that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research. This session will highlight 1) current understanding of research integrity practices, 2) efforts to assess institutional & department climate for responsible research practices, 3) education as a means for promoting responsible practices, and 4) how these factors can inform strategies for complying with NIH and NSF requirements. Michigan State University's efforts will be used as a case study to stimulate discussion about planning and implementing an effective RCR Education program.

Terry A. May*, Faculty Conflict of Interest Information Officer, Michigan State University; Carol R.Thrush, Assistant Professor, Office of Educational Development, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; Brian C. Martinson, Senior Research Investigator, HealthPartners Research Foundation

58

Compliance

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Clinical Trials Management: Industry and NIH Trials, How Do We Handle Each Type? Program Level: Intermediate Departmental

Dissecting Requests for Proposals/Requests for Quotes Program Level: Intermediate A PI has just asked you to help in preparation of a proposal. You are told that the proposal is in response to an RFP and you are provided a copy of the RFP. What do you do now? In this session we will discuss in detail the many aspects of a Request for Proposals (RFP) (sometimes known as a Request for Quotes (RFQ)) to help attendees understand an RFP's importance to both the proposal preparation/submission process and that of award administration. Specific issues addressed will include: the nature of an RFP and how it differs from a funding opportunity announcement; standard components of an RFP; where in the RFP to find the proposal preparation instructions; which offices at your institution to contact when you discover that you are submitting to an RFP; common pitfalls and how to avoid them. NIH Update Program Level: Overview This session covers the latest news from the National Institutes of Health including budget information, current policy topics, policy reminders, and updates on NIH eRA activities.

Learning Objectives: · Participants will be able to explain the key differences between an RFP and financial assistance funding opportunity. · Participants will be able to describe the standard components of an RFP and their importance. Prerequisites: Participants should have some experience with proposal preparation/submission and with their institution's submission process. David J. Mayo*, Director of Sponsored Research, California Institute of Technology; Michele M. Codd, Assistant Director-Institute for Software Integrated Systems,Vanderbilt University

Departmental

Learning Outcomes: · Participants will learn basic overview information on current NIH grants policy topics with a focus on new, emerging initiatives. · Participants will be reminded of continuing grants policy topics. · Participants will be provided updates on NIH eRA activities including eRA Commons and electronic submission of NIH grant applications. Joe Ellis*, Director, Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, National Institutes of Health; Carol Wigglesworth, Grants Policy Analyst, National Institutes of Health

Federal

* Lead Presenter

59

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Kathie Olsen*, Vice President, International Programs, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities Agency Funding Update: International Projects Program Level: Overview The Obama administration has recognized that global challenges must be met with global solutions.Therefore, it has set about to promote more and better international collaborations in science and technology.While many agencies have always encouraged scientific collaborations to some extent, many are now encouraging and promoting more international teamwork to tackle our most urgent world problems of poverty, food security, energy, water, disease, environment, economic instability, and communications. New approaches are being explored by the National Science Foundation's Office of International Science and Engineering, the National Institutes of Health's Fogarty International Center, and the State Department's new Science and Technology Office.This session will explore what these and other government agencies are doing to encourage international research collaborations. Revising and Resubmitting Unsuccessful Proposals Program Level: Intermediate Because only 25% or fewer grant applications are funded, most active researchers have files full of unfunded proposals with the potential to be revised and resubmitted for better success rates. This session will explore reasons for rejection by federal and other funders and offer practical and effective strategies for research administrators to help principal investigators to revise and resubmit unfunded proposals. Examples of reviewers' comments will be used for participants to determine whether resubmission is worthwhile, and if so, how and what changes should be made in the resubmitted proposal. The session will also provide a brief overview of the review and resubmission process and funding rates of major federal agencies. Award Close-out Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn to analyze reviewers' comments and determine whether a proposal is suitable for resubmission. · Participants will receive useful tools and strategies to assist researchers in revising a proposal or budget to meet reviewers' and agency expectations. · Participants will gain insights into agency review practices and how to position a grant proposal to receive strong reviews. Prerequisites: Familiarity with agency application guidelines. Marjorie P. Piechowski*, Director of Research Support, College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; Michelle Schoenecker, Senior Technical Grant Writer, College of Engineering & Applied Science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee;

Pre-award

International

Nguyet Sin, Accounting Manager, Office of Sponsored Research, Stanford University; Tim Reuter, Associate Director Post Award, Stanford University

60

Post-award

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will examine the demonstrated strategies for successful day-to-day, transactional research administration · Participants will focus on finding personal success using shared tools and individual traits and exceptional and creative problemsolving skills that benefit research institutions Samantha J.Westcott, Grant Manager, Department of Biology, California Institute of Technology; Alice M. Doyle, Grants Manager, Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology Tips and Tools for the Departmental Research Administrator: Working Independently while Multi-Tasking Program Level: Basic Departmental Research Administrators (DRAs) often work independently and are expected to manage multiple tasks with conflicting and intercepting deadlines.This solution session will explore tools and tips for multi-tasking specifically for the DRA.This includes how to manage tickler files, deadlines, pre-award and postaward activities, and non-research related tasks independently and with the appropriate prioritization and sense of urgency.The discussion will encompass time management, prioritization, interpersonal dynamics, and general tools-of-the trade sensibilities. We will explore how planning and forethought, collaboration among peers, persistence, tenacity, and even a seeming ability for ESP as well as the ownership of a problem until it is resolved is at the heart of the workload for the DRA. Budgeting in a Storm Program Level: Advanced This senior level session will discuss the issues surrounding responsible budgeting in our current economic environment where we face a recession, declining university budgets and spikes in federal funding that are anticipated to be temporary. Topics will include managing the decision making process surrounding budgeting and ensuring proper fiscal planning in a time of uncertainty. Strategies for addressing many of the issues involved in budgeting in our current financial times will be discussed.

Post-award

Senior

Learning Objectives: · Participants will have an understanding of how other institutions are managing budgets in our current economic environment. · Participants will have further insight into the issues that need to be considered when preparing budgets in today's reality. · Participants will be exposed to the strategies that other institutions are using to address many of today's budgeting challenges. Prerequisites: A knowledge of budgeting in an environment responsible for the management of sponsored programs funding. Kerry Peluso*, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, Emory University; Jennifer Hubert, Huron Consulting Group; Pat Fitzgerald, Associate Dean For Research Administration, Harvard University

Administering Large and Complex Projects Program Level: Advanced Program administrators are in charge of many aspects of post award and pre-award functions; some of those are organizing your own requests for proposals and review processes, awarding grants, and then keeping track of them all, oh...did I mention match requirements? This session will explore ways to call for and track multiple proposals, projects, and due dates; effective communication with PI's, collaborations with multiple organizations, and multitasking tips.

Holly Falk-Krzesinski*, National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP), Chair, National Steering Committee; Jacob Levine, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Research Development, University of California - Irvine; Alicia J. Knoedler, Associate Director for Strategic Initiatives, Pennsylvania State University; Sandra Boatwright, Proposal and Publication Manager, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Kathy Petersen, Grant Manager, AUTC, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Senior

* Lead Presenter

61

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Participants will learn the value and benefit of custom database design for pre- and post-award administration; basic database design principles to ensure easy retrieval of data and reporting and how to structure pre- and post-award data in relational tables. Solution Discussion Leaders: Péter Molnár, Associate Professor of Computer and Information Science, Clark Atlanta University; Tanya D. Young, Senior Postaward Administrator, Clark Atlanta University; Carol E. Johnson, Director, Research and Sponsored Programs, Clark Atlanta University Custom Database Development for Research Administration Research administration at limited resource institutions or small colleges and universities often face unique data management challenges due to their particular responsibilities: commercially available software solutions may not fit the institutional structure; contracting custom solutions may be financially unattainable. The Research and Sponsored Programs Division at Clark Atlanta University collaborated with computer science faculty to develop a custom database solution.This session is designed to share experience, lessons learned in the collaboration process, best practices and tools for database development. The session will provide an overview of basic database principles, software application, and benefit of developing an "in house" data management solution for pre- and post-award administration. Open Forum on Animal Research Oversight Compliance with federal rules and regulations extends beyond the traditional role of the IACUC to encompass many entities on campus. The focus of this session will be the role of college and university research administrators in oversight of animal research conducted at their institution. After institutions have determined exactly what animals are used on campus they should assess that necessary checks and balances are in place. Additional topics to be addressed include external inspections and site visits, responsibilities of the CEO, information required in PHS grant applications, monitoring for and reporting noncompliance, what needs to happen if a protocol is suspended, what changes have to be cleared by the NIH funding entity, use of holding protocols, tracking animals used by protocol and grant, charges against grants if protocol is expired/suspended, and more. Skill and Career Development for Departmental Research Administrators We will focus on the best and the worst traits of the DRA and how to find career growth within the department or where to find it outside the department.We will also provide and share: tools for managing life in the trenches of the DRA world, useful tips and secrets in managing the balance of the ever-growing workload, and the organizational skills that are key to success.

Compliance

Solution Discussion Leaders: Molly Greene, IACUC Advisor, Michigan State University; Joseph R. Haywood, Assistant Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, Michigan State University

Compliance

Departmental

Solution Discussion Leaders: Michele M. Codd, Assistant DirectorInstitute for Software Integrated Systems,Vanderbilt University; Brian N. Squilla, Director of Administration & Finance; Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

Department of Education This session will offer the participants an overview of common audit exceptions to avoid, a listing of the key guidance documents and resources to turn to when revising your grant projects, and helpful hints to mitigate risks involved with managing federal discretionary grant programs. Federal

Solution Discussion Leader: David Downey, Management Analyst in the Office of the Secretary at the U.S. Department of Education

62

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

recovery mechanisms used for billing federal awards for research services; understanding the obstacles and challenges of implementing a cost recovery program; and developing strategies to implement the program successfully. Solution Discussion Leader: Royce R. Sampson,South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute (SCTR), Finance & Administrative Director, SUCCESS Center Director, Medical University of South Carolina Solution Discussion Leaders: Jennifer J. Crockett, Budget Manager, Vice Provost for Research, Northeastern University; Mary Beth Curtin, Associate Director,The Small Scale Systems Integration and Packaging, State University of New York at Binghamton Cost Recovery Practices for Billing Federal and Other Sponsored Trials for Research Services Group discussion of cost recovery practices and implementation strategies for billing federal and other sponsored trials for research services such as those being implemented by NIH, NCRR funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) centers transitioning from the previous General Clinical Research Centers (GCRC) grant. Learning objectives: understanding various cost Is the Grass Really Greener? Departmental vs. Central Roles When we are involved in our day-to-day work, we sometimes dream about working in areas we aren't as familiar with, such as departmental or central roles, thinking that those workloads cannot be as insane as our own. We want to be successful in our roles, but at times believe that a move to a different venue would be a much better fit than the world we currently work in. We will talk about the pros and cons associated with moved from either a depart-mental to a central role or a central role to a departmental Role. Research Communication: How to Let Them Know What Your Institution is Doing ­ Getting the Word out Globally International

Human Capital

Federal

Solution Discussion Leader: James J. Casey, Jr., Director of Contracts and Industrial Agreements, University of Texas at San Antonio

How Do You Handle Faculty Requests for Exceptions to Your IP or Publication Policies? Many universities have policies prohibiting the acceptance of publication restrictions or sponsor ownership of universitydeveloped intellectual property in externally-funded research projects. Sooner or later in your career as a research administrator, someone on your campus will test how far your university will digress from one or more of its policies to accept a sponsored project. What are the unintended consequences of making an exception to policy? What issues need to be thought through before granting a request? And, what language needs to be in the final agreement to protect the university and future faculty research? Join the discussion on how to handle requests for exceptions to your IP or publication policies. Subrecipient Monitoring

Solution Discussion Leader: Monique Anderson, Assistant Director, University of Maryland College Park

Pre-award

Solution Discussion Leader: Csilla M. Csaplár, Senior Contract & Grant Officer, Office of Sponsored Research, Stanford University

Post-award

* Lead Presenter

63

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

8:30 ­ 10:00 am SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leaders: Vivian Holmes, Assistant Director, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; Lisa Talacci, Senior Accountant, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Post-award Hot Topic - Our Own Policies and Procedures: Findings Found It is possible that our own policies and procedures paint us into a corner where noncompliance may be inevitable. A recent overhaul of institutional policies and procedures, we realize this vulnerability exists universally in - those policies we promise to abide by - and a thorough review of each may save us many headaches ("findings") and troubles ("weaknesses").We've learned our policies must be fluid and our procedures capable of accommodating changes in our fluctuating systems, our ever-changing personnel and operations, new and unique federal regulations such as ARRA, and always varying sponsor requirements. With a particular focus on postaward, we hope to share solutions for policy traps we may have set for ourselves specifically in the Monitoring of Awards, Travel Policies, and Closeout Policies and Procedures. Feel free to bring your own policy, procedure or solution.

10:00 ­ 10:30 am

REFRESHMENT BREAK

10:30 am ­ Noon

Senior

CONCURRENT SESSIONS

Jilda D. Garton*, Associate Vice Provost for Research and General Manager of Gtrc/gtarc, Georgia Institute of Technology

Export Controls for the Pre-award Administrator Program Level: Intermediate Compliance Effective Communication with Challenging Peers Program Level: Basic How to deal with peers in the research administration chain both above and below your responsibility level and successfully communicate your needs ... even if they don't want to hear. We'll hear from the perspective of three different seasoned research administration professionals. Departmental

Anne M. Pascucci*, Director, Radford University; Ken W. Clark, Director, Western Washington University; Sally J. Southwick, Director of Grants and Sponsored Research, Northern State University

64

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Learning Objectives: · Participants will understand the current environment necessitating change. · Participants will understand the proposed changes and how they compare to current regulatory requirements. · Participants will gain insight into the rationale behind the proposed changes. · Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions. Prerequisites: Participants should read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Responsibility of Applicants for Promoting Objectivity in Research for Which Public Health Service Funding is Sought and Responsible Prospective Contractors. Joe Ellis*, Director, Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, OER, NIH; Diane Dean, Director Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight, NIH/OD/OER/OPERA, Department of Health and Human Services; Kathy Hancock, Assistant Grants Compliance Officer, Division of Grants Compliance and Oversight, OPERA, OER, NIH Learning Objectives: Participants will be updated on current issues impacting research under consideration by the Administration and Congress. Tony De Crappeo*, President, Council on Governmental Relations (COGR); Jennifer Poulakidas, Vice President, Congressional & Governmental Affairs, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) NIH Conflict of Interest Program Level: Update NIH is committed to promoting objectivity in research and ensuring unbiased design, conduct and reporting of Federallyfunded research. Since the existing rules on financial conflict of interest were implemented in 1995, the complexity of interactions among government, research institutions and the private sector has continually increased. In response, HHS has proposed changes to the existing regulations to strengthen accountability and transparency of current financial conflict of interest rules at the government, institutional and investigator level. This session will provide participants with information on the proposed changes to the regulations in the context of the current requirements.

Federal Federal

Washington Update Program Level: Overview There is always something going on in Washington that affects research and sponsored programs at colleges and universities whether it's political curiosity, legislative mischief, or unrelenting regulatory expansion.This session will provide an update and analysis of the latest developments.

Feng Shui Your Office Program Level: Overview The session will provide a working knowledge of the Feng Shui process to enhance your office environment and improve your life.

Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn the connection between space and people. · Participants will learn to improve flow of energy and energize your work area. · Participants will learn to create surroundings that support and facilitate positive change. Rosemary E. Madnick*, Assistant Vice President, Research Administration, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute; Ludmila Budilo, Senior, Grants and Contracts Officer, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute

Human Capital

* Lead Presenter

65

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

Theresa C. Hollister, Sr. Grant and Contract Administrator, Office of Sponsored Programs, Binghamton University; Mary Beth Curtin, Associate Director,The Small Scale Systems, Integration and Packaging, State University of New York at Binghamton Research as an Economic Tool Program Level: Basic Many factors are reshaping the purpose and structure of research administration.The recent downturn in the economy is one such external factor that is driving an increased expectation of our universities as agents of economic change; with its research programs providing the spark for innovation that can lead to prosperous economies. With increasing frequency, research administrators are brought into this dialogue. An overview of this changing landscape will be presented, followed by a state perspective on the role of government-industry-university partnerships in a state's strategic economic planning, followed by a case study of a university-based research center involved in research and economic development. Working Successfully in the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) Program Level: Overview The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) funded by the European Union offers a unique opportunity for scientists and academic research institutions in this country to be directly involved in research activities with their European counterparts. U.S. institutions may participate in FP7 by receiving EU funds directly or by providing their own funds to participate in consortia created to address problems identified through FP7 programs. U.S. universities may also temporarily host visiting students or post-docs provided EU funding through Marie Curie Fellowships within the Peoples program of FP7. This session will provide tips and strategies for U.S. institutions to work successfully with the European Union in these programs.

Industry

International

Learning Objectives: Participants in this session will learn key aspects of the FP7 program and tips and strategies for successful collaboration of their institution with European counterparts funded through FP7. They will learn to identify some of the legal issues participation may include with U.S. research universities through this funding program and how these issues may be successfully addressed and overcome. Norman J. Hebert*, Director, Office of Sponsred Projects, Brown University; Astrid Koch, Science Counsellor at the Delegation of the European Union to the United States

66

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued)

David Bond*, Director, Sponsored Research Services, Rochester Institute of Technology Running a Grant Writers' Boot Camp Program Level: Does your university have investigators that struggle with writing effective grant proposals that can make it through peer review? Some universities try to address this with intensive sessions in writing with inside and outside experts. Rochester Institute of Technology has offered a Grant Writers' Boot Camp for the past five years. The Boot Camp has become an essential stop on the faculty development roadmap. This session will discuss the development, implementation and evolution of the program, and may give you some good ideas to take home. Audits and Site Visits Program Level: Advanced Your PI walks into the department's administrative office and casually mentions that his project monitor called and said he'll be stopping by next week for a visit. He'll be accompanied by one of the staff from the "fiscal side of the house." Your antennae perk up. "Visit"? "Fiscal side"? What more did the monitor say? Why is the agency really coming? Audits are inevitable and site visits should be commonplace. Is your institution ready? Come join us and check out your comfort level. We will present how to prepare and what to expect from an agency or other monitoring visit. Hot topics will also be reviewed. Export Controls:Will this be Winter of our Discontent? Program Level: Overview In spring 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced the planned overhaul of the U.S. export controls licensing regime with an aggressive timeline for implementation. Concurrently, the reissuance by the Department of Defense of the "Young memo" mandating that fundamental research funded under basic research support remain unfettered by restrictions on publication. Universities were cautiously optimistic that some relief from the burden of export controls compliance might finally be realized. However, summer brought the passage of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2010 by Congress and news from the Department of Homeland Security of new requirements for an export controls compliance certification as a part of each UCIS Form I129 required for all H1B visa applications. While it is clear that the Obama administration is willing to tackle some of the more thorny issues related to export controls that could reduce the burden of export compliance on universities, the export control reform effort appears to have stalled and uncertainty looms on just how these actions might play out.This panel discussion featuring federal agency representatives will provide a fall update on the current status of each of these and one university administrator's perspective on the potential impact or fallout that can be anticipated. Susan W. Sedwick*, Associate Vice President for Research, Director, Office of Sponsored Projects, University of Texas at Austin Learning Objectives: Participants will learn about audits and site visits and acquire information for successful preparation in the event of either. Lynne Yorita*, Audit Manager, University of California-Los Angeles; Michele M. Codd, Assistant Director-Institute for Software Integrated Systems,Vanderbilt University; Kallie Firestone, Senior Compliance Specialist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Senior

Post-award

Pre-award

* Lead Presenter

67

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS

Learning Objectives · Participants will apply a step-wise process for determining whether activities involve Human Subject Research requiring IRB review; · Participants will discuss recent regulatory changes impacting IRBs and Human Subject Protection. Solution Discussion Leader: Belinda Smith, Research Education Specialist, Office of Research Integrity, University of Kentucky Human Research Reviews The Human Research Protection paradigm combines an equal measure of regulatory compliance with sensitivity to ethical principles. Application of the regulations begins with the basic but sometimes perplexing concept of what activities need IRB review. Determining which regulations apply require sequential application of definitions and regulatory guidance where even the words "and", "if " and "or" carry great significance. In addition, IRBs are challenged with keeping current in an ever changing regulatory environment.This session will provide a forum for discussion of these fundamental and topical subjects. You will have an opportunity to shape the conduct of this session and are encouraged to share your challenges, successes, anecdotes, and pearls of knowledge. Procurement Cards: What We Have Learned, How We Monitor Usage As much as we might like to get rid of them, procurement cards are here to stay. In this solution discussion we will share some pcard horror stories and what we learned from those experiences. We will provide tools and tips for preventing similar incidences and best practices regarding monitoring the use of p-cards. Solutions for Managing Re-Charge Centers and Research Service Facilities Re-Charge Centers (a.k.a. Charge Back Centers) and Research Service Facilities provide the use of specialized equipment and services to the university research community. These facilities usually reside within a university department and are typically funded by a combination of department funds, infrastructure grants, and revenue collected from services provided to investigators within the university or the local research community. The management of these facilities requires administrators to implement standard business practices that address complex personnel, quality assurance, billing, collection, and accounting issues in order to ensure the successful operation of the facility. # This session will discuss how administrators can implement business rules, cost accounting procedures, and software systems to improve the management of their re-charge centers and research facilities. Discussion will focus on developing standard business practices and emphasize the use of software tools and procedures for day-to-day management and financial planning. Solution Discussion Leaders: Lisa N. Gentry, Assistant Dean, Finance & Administration, University of Arizona; Jennifer J. Crockett, Budget Manager,Vice Provost for Research, Northeastern University; Charlene Blevens, Assistant Vice President and Interim Controller, Florida International University

Departmental

Compliance

Solution Discussion Leader: James (Jim) H Wrenn, President & CEO of IT Works

68

General

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leaders: Bruce Morgan, Assistant Vice Chancellor For Research, University of California-Irvine; Suzanne M. Rivera, Vice President for Research Administration, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Talent Development and Retention ­ A Multi-Generational Challenge When research administrators are also organizational leaders, the professional development and retention of the next generation of leaders is vital for career satisfaction and happiness-- for both the current and future leaders. The identification, development and retention of future organizational leaders is an important process that involves multiple generations. However, each generation has different values, so what motivates a Baby Boomer may not be effective with Generations X or Y. How can you bridge those generational differences to ensure the successful succession of research administration leadership at your institution? This solution discussion seeks to identify the challenges we face regarding talent development and retention, and proposes tips and tools to address those challenges through a multi-generational dialogue. Experienced leaders and managers are invited to share the skills, knowledge, abilities and experiences that are important in research administration leadership, and the challenges they face in creating and implementing succession plans. In addition, those who are working their way toward leadership positions are invited to share what motivates them, what is important to them as they climb the leadership ladder, and what goals are most important to them. International Travel and HR Issues We will discuss administrative issues related to international exchange and travel, with an emphasis not only on how to budget correctly for various issues and challenges but also how to maintain leverage when dealing with foreign partner nations.We will also discuss how to document fully and properly exchange activities.Topics covered will include different types of visas; the Fly America Act; international shipment issues, especially foreign customs; in-country transportation; living, housing, and meal stipends for U.S. and for foreign participants; taxes for U.S. participants while overseas; and the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. Pre-award Hot Topics Pre-award research administrators accustomed to working in a deadline-driven environment and juggling a variety of competing priorities are well-positioned to be proactive about identifying "what's next" and proposing solutions for the faculty they serve. All research administrators on the pre-award side, at both at the central and departmental levels, are well advised to keep abreast of issues poised to impact the administration and management of sponsored programs. Join us for this discussion solution group where we'll discuss and share what we're doing with regard to hot topics such as research development and assessment, responsible conduct of research, electronic submission systems, institutional and individual conflicts of interest, export controls, problematic clauses, and whatever else appears on the research administration landscape between now and November!

Human Capital

Solution Discussion Leader: Gillisann Harootunian, Director of Sponsored Programs, California State University, Fresno

International

Solution Discussion Leaders: Cindy S.White, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, Belmont University; Nancy Daneau, Assistant Director, Administrative and Operations, State University of New York at Stony Brook; Craig A. Reynolds, Chief Administrator, Biological Chemistry, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

Pre-award

* Lead Presenter

69

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

AGENDA

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

10:30 am ­ Noon SOLUTION DISCUSSIONS (continued)

Solution Discussion Leaders: Kathy Peterson, Grant Manager, AUTC, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Sandra Boatwright, Proposal and Publication Manager, University of Alaska Fairbanks Administering Program Grants and Other Large Complex Multi-Funded Projects Program administrators are in charge of many aspects of post award and pre-award functions; some of those are organizing your own requests for proposals and review processes, awarding grants, and then keeping track of them all, oh...did I mention match requirements? This solution discussion will explore ways to call for and track multiple proposals, projects, and due dates; effective communication with PI's, collaborations with multiple organizations, and multi-tasking tips. Succession Planning A study done in the late 1990's by the Office of Personnel Management indicated that by 2003, over a third of federal workers would be eligible for retirement. Data published in 2009 by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) make up over one third of the US work force. Clearly, organizations need to anticipate the prospect that key employees may be retiring soon, and that qualified individuals need to be identified to replace them.What will happen when they do? Succession planning is a process designed to help organizations continue to support their long-term goals and objectives by helping employees develop skills and abilities, and to prepare for advancement so they are ready to assume new leadership roles as needs arise.

Post-award

Discussion during this solution discussion will focus on the challenges of putting a succession plan in place, as opposed to the more traditional replacement plan ­ the time honored process of reacting to the departure of an employee by recruiting a replacement. Succession planning involves identifying positions for which you want/need a succession plan (target positions or whole units or organizations?), inventorying skills (hard skills, knowledge and abilities, as well as the core qualities of leaders), and designing an ongoing program that ensures that the organization is prepared for maintaining continuality. Solution Discussion Leaders: Ann M. Pollack, Assistant Vice Chancellor-Research, University of California-Los Angeles; Virginia Anders, Director, Sponsored Projects Office, Office of Research, University of California Santa Barbara

Noon

ADJOURNMENT

70

Senior

* Lead Presenter

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

7:30 am ­ 5:00 pm ON-SITE SERVICE DESK AND REGISTRATION OPEN 8:30 am ­ 4:30 pm FULL DAY WORKSHOPS (Pre-registration and additional fee are required)

and processes, as well as examine important post-award management issues such as cost transfers, cost sharing, effort reporting, financial reporting, allowable costs, preparing for audits, closing out sponsored awards and much more! The experienced post-award research administrators leading this workshop will provide participants with information, tips and techniques to effectively and efficiently manage the day-to-day activities of post-award sponsored projects management. Program Level: Basic Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about the key principles and basic policies underlying post-award sponsored projects management · Participants will gain an understanding of their role in post-award management processes · Participants will learn how to identify and resolve common problems by applying techniques and tips provided by the workshop faculty and other participants Prerequisites: None Faculty: Tracey Fraser, Senior Director, Financial Services, California Institute of Technology; Robert Andresen, Assistant Director, Post-award Services, Research & Sponsored Programs, University of WisconsinMadison; Vivian Holmes, Assistant Director, Sponsored Research,The Broad Institute; Bill Lambert, Director of Cost Studies, Emory University Departmental

Pre-award Pre-award Basics This workshop will provide a one-day immersion into the basic issues and functions of a pre-award office.Topics will include the care and education of PIs, identifying and disseminating funding opportunities; facilitating collaborative and multidisciplinary efforts; assisting with proposal development, review, approval and submission of proposals; reviewing, interpreting, negotiating and celebrating new awards, and finally a basic terminology/acronym overview. Particular emphasis will be placed on the importance of preparing and/or approving a "good budget," from the perspectives of the PI, the peer reviewers and regulatory officials.The faculty is committed to equipping attendees with knowledge, reliable reference resources, and an understanding of how to build a professional network to preserve your sanity. Interactive teaching methods will be interspersed throughout the day to solidify important concepts. Program Level: Basic Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about the universal roles, responsibilities and professional values of pre-award research administration · Participants will be able to prepare a standard budget with costs appropriate to a project, and be able to distinguish allowable and unallowable costs as well as direct and indirect (facilities and administrative) costs · Participants will know how to access tools available to assist with funding opportunity dissemination, proposal preparation, and electronic submission. Prerequisites: None Faculty: Cindy White, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, Belmont University; Jamie Caldwell, Director, Office of Research Services for the Health Sciences, Loyola University Chicago at the Medical Center; Heather M. Offhaus, Director, Medical School Grant Review & Analysis, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor; Beth Seaton, Director of Sponsored Projects,Western Illinois University Post-award Post-award Basics Are you adrift on the ocean of post-award sponsored projects management without a rudder or sail? Have you asked yourself, or others,"How do I manage the daily hurdles of managing sponsored awards?"This workshop will focus on the challenges that the new research administrator or the research administrator new to post-award management may encounter. It will include an overview of the key principles and basic policies underlying post-award activities, transactions

WS #1

WS #3 Departmental Administration Basics At the heart of many institutions performing research there are departmental administrators supporting the research enterprise, as well as many other tasks.This workshop will spend a full day covering research administration across a broad spectrum of areas including pre-award, post-award, subrecipient monitoring, closeout, and audit.We will spend some time on focused areas of interest including proposal preparation, budgeting, account set-up and monitoring, cost transfers, and compliance. There will be case studies to practice applying knowledge gained from the workshop and for participants to share solutions that work for them at their institutions.We will have time for questions and discussions and hope to have lots of sharing of successes, as well as tools and tips so that participants leave with a stronger skill set in research administration.

Program Level: Basic Learning Objectives: Participants will leave with a broad understanding of major areas of research administration, information and tools for successful pre-award and post-award award management, and an overall understanding of compliance from the perspective of the departmental administrator. Prerequisites: This workshop will cover a broad range of research administration issues for departmental administrators. It will be helpful if participants have an understanding of general terms, structure, and the business of research administration on the whole and within their respective institutions. Faculty: Samantha J.Westcott, Senior Grant Manager, Division of Biology, California Institute of Technology; Jennifer J. Crockett, Budget Manager,Vice Provost for Research, Northeastern University; Ben Prince, Administrator, Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School at Worcester; Jaynee Tolle, Senior Grant Administrator, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cincinnati

* Lead Presenter

WS #2

71

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

8:30 am ­ 4:30 pm FULL DAY WORKSHOPS (continued)

Prerequisites: Previous work experience with non-profit, foundation or industry contracts and grants. Faculty: Jeremy Trybulski, Policy Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, University of California Office of the President; Marjorie Forster, Assistant Vice President for Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore; Dianne Archer, Coordinator, Private Contracts & Grants, Research Administration Office, University of California Office of the President

Federal Introduction to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Negotiating contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) can be challenging for even the most experienced research administrator. This workshop will introduce participants to the FAR's purpose and organization, and explain how it works. In addition, we will learn how to identify various contract types, how to review a Request for Proposals, and how to negotiate a few key clauses.

WS #4

8:30 am ­ Noon

Compliance

MORNING WORKSHOPS

Program Level: Basic Learning Objectives: Upon conclusion of the workshop, participants will be able to: Describe the structure of the FAR and demonstrate the relationship between prescriptions and clauses; Identify contract types (e.g. cost reimbursement, fixed-price, time and materials) and explain how and when they are used; Read and understand a Request for Proposal and identify a few required and/or problematic clauses. Prerequisites: None Faculty: Randall Draper, Director, Office of Contracts and Grants, University of Colorado at Boulder; Kathleen Reneau Lorenzi, Associate Director, Office of Contracts and Grants, University of Colorado at Boulder Federal Troublesome Terms from Non-Profits, Foundations and Industry: Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place Troublesome terms and conditions are no longer limited to industry and Federal contracts.While many of the challenging issues have been the same over time, troublesome terms are now routinely showing up in non-profit and foundation awards as well. Old issues like confidentiality, publication, intellectual property, licensing, liability, insurance, indemnification, and restrictions on research areas or limitations on other sources of funding join new issues like export control and anti-terrorist language. In addition, invoicing, financial reporting, and other paymentrelated terms are now often problematic.This workshop will explore these issues in non-profit, foundation and industry awards using real examples as case studies for the participants to apply the knowledge learned through an interactive discussion with the workshop faculty.

WS #5

Compliance Issues for Pre-award Administrators The clock is ticking.The proposal submission deadline looms.You've checked the budget, the proposal narrative fonts and margins, and all the required parts of the application.What else needs your review before the proposal is submitted? Many areas of compliance often do not receive adequate attention during the proposal review process, usually due to deadline, time, or staffing constraints. However, lack of attention to compliance could not only impact the potential for a successful proposal, but it may also lead to unexpected difficulties at your institution if the project is awarded as proposed. It is therefore vital to have a good understanding of the major areas of compliance and to be able to identify and address potential issues, so that problems may be avoided or at least minimized.This workshop will focus on six major compliance topics that should be considered and resolved in the pre-award proposal review process: Human Subjects; Cost Sharing; Conflict of Interest;Total Effort; Export Controls; and OFAC issues. For each of these compliance topics, the workshop will address critical issues to be examined in the proposal review process. It will include discussion and several case studies. Program Level: Basic Learning Objectives: Participants will be familiar with six major compliance issues commonly associated with grant applications for Federal research funding and will be aware of strategies for effectively addressing those compliance issues. Prerequisites: This workshop is designed for individuals who have had at least a few years of experience in the pre-award realm of research administration at either a central or departmental office. Faculty: Christa Johnson, Associate Dean for Research,The Graduate School, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville; Angela R. Charboneau Wishon, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Regulatory Compliance, University of Colorado, Denver

WS #6

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn how to identify troublesome issues in non-profit, foundation and industry awards · Participants will learn what kinds of consequences may result from accepting troublesome terms for both the investigator and the institution · Participants will learn suggested alternative terms and conditions and negotiating strategies for minimizing or eliminating the impact of the troublesome terms

72

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

8:30 am ­ Noon MORNING WORKSHOPS (continued)

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will understand what constitutes cost sharing · Participants will acquire an understanding of the applicable federal policies, including expectations for reporting and record keeping · Participants will learn how cost sharing impacts Facilities & Administrative (F&A) rates Prerequisites: Pre-award and/or post-award intermediate level personnel or those re-examining cost sharing policies and practices at their institution Faculty: Richard P. Seligman, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, California Institute of Technology; Marti L. Dunne, Associate Vice Provost for Research Compliance and Administration, New York University Compliance Risk Assessment:Theory to Practice The world a research administrator inhabits is fraught with risk as we attempt to comply with the myriad of regulations we must salute. As a research administrator, you assess risk every day--should you allow this deviation from normal policies? What steps should my institution take to implement this new federal rule? How do I assure that investigators are complying with a certain requirement? This risk assessment workshop will provide a tool for making risk assessments, a discussion of what controls can be put in place to minimize risk, and case studies of specific risk areas. Come prepared for a little theory and a lot of practical examples which will help you in your daily decisions. Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of the risks encountered in sponsored programs · Participants will be taking several factors into consideration, and learn to utilize a risk assessment tool · Participants will discover approaches taken by various institutions in assessing and managing risk Prerequisites: Participants should have a broad knowledge of and several years in research administration including knowledge of regulatory and other issues which pose risks for their institution. Faculty: Jane A.Youngers, Assistant Vice President for Research,The University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio; Gunta J. Liders, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Rochester

Compliance Export Controls: Regulatory Overview & Basic Concepts The intent of this workshop is to provide participants with a general introduction to the principle export control regulations applicable to the activities of colleges and universities.The workshop will cover what is and is not subject to export control, provide definitions of common terms, and introduce the basic concepts associated with export control. Wherever possible, workshop faculty will point out flexibility in the regulations or license exceptions that may be available. Participants will be provided with copies of faculty presentation materials, as well as excerpts from the Export Administration Regulations, Embargo and Trade Sanctions, and International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

WS #7

WS #9

Program Level: Basic Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn the common regulatory terms and concepts pertaining to export controls · Participants will develop familiarity with the organization and content of the export control regulations · Participants will learn to spot common "red flags" that may indicate the need for additional export assessment for a particular grant, contract, or proposed activity · Participants will better understand the impact export control regulations can have on research activities at colleges and universities Prerequisites: None Faculty: Kelly Hochstetler, Senior Research Compliance Officer, Office of Research Integrity, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Brandi Boniface, Assistant Director of Research, Division of Sponsored Research, University of Florida Compliance Cost on Sponsored Projects:Why No WS #8 GoodSharingGoes Unpunished Deed This workshop provides an in-depth, detailed review of the issues surrounding cost sharing on sponsored projects, primarily grants funded by federal agencies.The workshop presents the definitions of cost sharing, including: voluntary; mandatory; voluntary committed; and voluntary uncommitted.The Office of Management & Budget (OMB) clarification of the cost sharing requirements of Circular A-21 also will be examined.The workshop includes a review of the types of costs that qualify for cost sharing and the requirements for documenting and reporting cost sharing.The relationship between cost sharing, effort reporting, and indirect cost rates will be analyzed and discussed. Recent audits conducted by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Inspector General will be reviewed.The workshop includes case studies concerning various aspects of cost sharing.

73

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

8:30 am ­ Noon MORNING WORKSHOPS (continued)

In addition to describing current audit environment and recent university audits, specific compliance topics covered will include cost principles, effort reporting, cost transfers, cost allocation, and subrecipient monitoring. Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn about the current audit environment related to financial research compliance and specific audits at research universities · Participants will learn where their institution's largest financial risks are · Participants will learn how to mitigate these risks Prerequisites: Participants should have a working knowledge of financial compliance and audit issues. In addition, participants are encouraged to bring current examples that can be discussed openly. Faculty: Jerry G. Fife, Vice Chancellor for Administration,Vanderbilt University; Joseph Taylor, Managing Director, Health and Education Practice, Huron Consulting Group Departmental Proposal Development to NIH The National Institutes of Health is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the United States.With the support of the American people, NIH annually invests over $28 billion in medical research. More than 83% of the NIH's funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 325,000 researchers at over 3,000 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state and around the world (from the NIH website).The importance of this funding cannot be overestimated, and expertise in the NIH application process should be part of the toolkit of every university research administrator.This workshop will include a seasoned research administrator who will provide guidance on the application process, particularly as it relates to the development of an R01 application, and will discuss other mechanisms, including training grants, working with subrecipients during the proposal preparation process, as well as touching upon complex funding mechanisms.The workshop will also include an NIH insider's guide to peer review, and how applications are selected for funding. Program Level: Basic Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn the nuts and bolts of the NIH application process and completion of critical parts of the application package, paying particular attention to enhanced peer review and its relationship to current application requirements · Participants will learn the basics of electronic proposal submission to the NIH · Participants will learn how the study sections, councils and institutes work together to determine which applications will be funded and why Prerequisites: None Faculty: Betty A. Farbman, Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, New York University; Michael A. Sesma, Health Scientist Administrator, Division of Developmental Translational Research, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH; Vicki Krell, Research Advancement Supervisor, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Dean's Office, Arizona State University

Compliance the WS #10 Working withStateITAR:A Hands-on Approach to Department Export License Applications and Requests Ensuring institutional compliance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR 120-130, has become a priority for many institutions, particularly those conducting work under U.S. Department of Defense and NASA funded grants and contracts.This workshop will deliver practical information on how to prepare and submit Commodity Jurisdiction Requests (CJs) and export license applications, including Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs) to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC).Tips will also be provided on setting realistic processing timelines, avoiding applications from being rejected or "returned without action," and how to request changes to provisos and make amendments to TAAs.The materials for this workshop will be the ITAR and associated DDTC forms and guidelines.Workshop faculty will use real-world examples to facilitate learning and discussion among the participants. Actual case studies will be used to review the most common types of submissions universities make to DDTC (CJs, DSP-73s, DSP-83s, DSP-5s,TAAs), including issues related to licensing students who are not U.S. Persons.Workshop attendees will actively participate in the application process.Time will be allowed for questions, and participants will be provided with an opportunity to network with peers at other institutions who are responsible for the day-to-day oversight and management of ITAR compliance. Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn how to prepare CJs and export license applications, including licensing students who are not U.S. Persons · Participants will learn how to prepare a TAA and process an amendment to a TAA · Participants will learn how to request changes to troublesome provisos attached to export licenses and agreements authorized by DDTC Prerequisites: Participants should have an in-depth understanding of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR 120-130). Faculty: Kay Ellis, University Export Controls Officer/Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Projects,The University of Texas at Austin; Adelia Koch, Director of Export Compliance, California Institute of Technology; David Brady, Director of the Office of Export and Secure Research Compliance,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Nora Moriarty, Export Control Officer, University of Arizona Compliance Financial Compliance The workshop will discuss financial and operational compliance risks and offer possible strategies to mitigate the risk. Using a combination of the personal experiences and OIG audit reports, this interactive workshop will rely on audience participation and proven strategies to provide participants with alternatives for reducing risk in financial compliance.

WS #12

WS #11

74

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

8:30 am ­ Noon MORNING WORKSHOPS (continued)

Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will obtain experienced answers for real-life issues on the Circulars · Participants will obtain working principles to solve a range of transactional situations - simple to complex · Participants will participate in the thought process utilized when approached with a problem · Participants will get the BIG picture as well as the small, detailed picture Prerequisites: Participants should have proven knowledge of the Circulars most applicable to their workplace; Participants should be willing to demonstrate their knowledge by contributing meaningful examples for discussion. Faculty: Ann M. Holmes, Assistant Dean, Finance & Administration, College of Behavioral & Social Sciences, University of Maryland College Park; Tim Reuter, Associate Director, Post Award, Office of Sponsored Research, Stanford University Federal Rights in Technical Data and Software and Data Policies Under Federal Grants and Contracts Rights in technical data and software under federal contracts raise complexities that are not encountered on the grants and agreements side, and differ markedly from rights to inventions under the Bayh-Dole Act with which many research administrators are familiar. In addition, federal granting agencies have created guidelines and grant conditions that require data sharing in various programs and circumstances.This interactive workshop will discuss these complexities and pitfalls to be aware of in negotiating the data rights terms of federal research agreements.The differences in approach between civilian agency and defense contracts, the varying definitions of "data" subject to federal rights, the various categories of these rights, issues with regard to copyright and computer software, and a variety of special clauses, including the "notorious" FAR Special Works, DFARS 7000 clauses and NIH Public Access Policy will be discussed. (This workshop will not address FDA clinical trial requirements).Examples of approaches and solutions drawn from participants' negotiating experiences will be an important aspect of the workshop.

Departmental Service Centers: How to Open and Operate ­ Legally! University departments use a variety of products or services to perform their activities.When these products or services are provided within the university these units function as nonprofit businesses and are called recharge or service centers.The cost of providing products and services are allocated to users, including federally sponsored agreements, by establishing billing rates which are applied to the actual usage of services.The rate is designed to recover costs from those users who benefit from the products or services offered.This workshop will look at considerations when setting up and operating a service center, including monitoring and oversight.This workshop will also look in-depth at the rate development including components of the budget, the rate base and service center audits.

WS #13

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn the characteristics of a service center · Participants will learn what to budget in the billing rate · Participants will learn the different rate bases that can be used to calculate the rate · Participants will learn about recent audit findings on service centers Prerequisites: This workshop is intended for participants who have some basic understanding of service centers, and are responsible for either the operation of a service center, or have oversight or compliance responsibilities. It is expected that attendees have had at least minimal exposure to service centers at their institution, however, the workshop will start with a discussion of the principles governing service or recharge centers. Faculty: Patrick W. Fitzgerald, Associate Dean for Research Administration, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University; Nuala McGowan, Research Finances and Systems Specialist, Faculty Arts and Sciences, Harvard University Federal Advanced Issues in A-21,A-122,A-110 and A-133 So you think you understand the Circulars? This workshop goes well beyond the basics by using case studies oriented around difficult real life situations. Can two reasonable people disagree on the interpretation of the Circulars? Is everything black and white at the transactional level where the implementation of the Circulars is crucial to the operation of the research enterprise at our institutions? Reality is that we live in a world of gray and most decisions are made on a case by case basis weighing heavily on the documentation at hand and adding a little "common sense" methodology before approving action items.The Circulars allow room for interpretation. Finding the right guidance for your institution is more than sharing best practices and procedures, it is understanding how to fine tune them for your institution.This workshop will look at advanced topics by taking the current compliance issues of interest around the country and dissecting them down to transactional level implementations.

WS #15

WS #14

Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: Participants will gain an in-depth understanding of: · Application of federal agencies' rights and requirements relative to data, technical data, publications, and computer software · Rules and treatment of data rights allocations by federal civilian agencies and the Department of Defense · Best practices for proper identification and assertion of use, release, and disclosure restrictions · Specific issues relating to use, delivery, and transfer of data deliverables · Copyright and license rights to copyrighted material and software · Related security and export control considerations Prerequisites: Working knowledge of Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR), Defense Supplement (DFARS) and federal research grant policy and agreement terms and conditions. Faculty: Robert B. Hardy, Director, Contracts and Intellectual Property Management, Council on Governmental Relations; Elaine L. Brock, Senior Associate Director, Division of Research Development and Administration, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

75

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

8:30 am ­ Noon MORNING WORKSHOPS (continued)

Human Capital Manage Successfully: Office Leadership in Research Administration You know all about A-21, effort reporting and salary caps. But now you're the boss, and no one ever taught you how to manage people.You may have some horror stories about terrible supervisors you've known (or worked for!).You may also have been fortunate enough to work for some great bosses.What are the differences, and how can you put yourself firmly in the "great boss" category? Designed for the beginning to mid-level manager, this workshop will introduce and develop key concepts of effective management--from vision and planning, to delegation and accountability. Along the way, the workshop will cover important issues in human resources, training and team building.We'll also deal with some thorny issues, such as managing the "difficult" employee, and keeping productivity and morale high in challenging fiscal times. Good management is a body contact sport, and you won't learn to be effective if you aren't willing to engage with people. Because of that, this workshop will be hands on.We'll be using case studies, and we'll expect everyone to be actively involved. Also, we have to warn you right up front: we don't have all the answers, and in management there is often more than one right answer anyway. So, be prepared to roll up your sleeves. Bring your imagination and your life experiences with you. Our goal is to help you provide effective office leadership at your institution.

WS #17

General Technology Transfer, Start Ups & Industry Collaborations Intellectual property that results from university research is frequently licensed (a Bayh-Dole success!) to new or existing companies for commercialization. Often faculty present interesting new concepts not yet reduced to practice that companies wish to further develop through research contracts that include the eventual right to license the technology. In both cases, nascent technology needs further development to bridge the oft-discussed "Valley of Death" through translational research. No entity is better equipped to undertake this research than the university.This workshop will examine the complex relationships that arise when universities interact in research projects that involve technology transfer.

WS #16

Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of commonly used contracting licensing approaches that address background intellectual property and new foreground intellectual property · Participants will explore the concept of a "Background Intellectual Property Briarpatch," understand the importance of sponsored programs office in managing the IP portfolio, and propose remedies · Participants will consider how to construct field of use licenses to meet the needs of sponsors, faculty, and start-up companies · Participants will review proprietary rights agreements for SBIR and STTR projects · Participants will consider the special financial arrangements and constraints (risks) in working with start-ups · Participants will discuss the requirements for conflict of interest disclosures and management plans Prerequisites: · Sound understanding of intellectual property terms · Experience and/or familiarity with different types of licensing arrangements · Exposure to proposing, negotiating, or administering universityindustry research · Familiarity with SBIR and STTR proposals and subcontracts · Familiarity with conflict of interest policies and guidelines Faculty: Jilda D. Garton, Associate Vice Provost for Research and General Manager of GTRC/GTARC, Georgia Institute of Technology

Program Level: Overview Learning Objectives: · Participants will understand effective management practices, with special emphasis on the importance of setting clear goals and objectives, delegating authority, and holding employees accountable for their performance · Participants will learn to use praise and other kinds of positive reinforcement to promote teamwork, keep morale high, increase personal responsibility and foster loyalty to the office · Participants will learn how to weave components of leadership, including vision, inspiration and confidence into your daily management practices · Participants will understand the role of training and the importance of providing an effective work environment as key to improving productivity and minimizing error rates Prerequisites: The workshop is designed for those in management positions and assumes basic working knowledge of research administration. Faculty: Robert P. Lowman, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Susan W. Sedwick, Associate Vice President for Research, Director, Office of Sponsored Projects, University of Texas at Austin

76

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

8:30 am ­ Noon MORNING WORKSHOPS (continued)

Pre-award Developing a Good Idea and Good Grantsmanship Writing competitive proposals are about two things--developing a good idea and good grantsmanship.Why should a funding agency fund you? Because you have convinced them that you have the best idea and that you and/or your team can achieve the agency's interests and priorities. This hands-on workshop will explore the many facets of research development and grantsmanship.We will evaluate appropriate funders and RFPs, and learn how to plan for and develop your grant proposal. Workshop participants will discover out how to develop and improve their grantsmanship skills through small group writing exercises.

Prerequisites: Participants should be able to locate and use the basic rules governing subawards and should be familiar with the basic process of issuing subawards under grants, as these topics will not be covered in this workshop. It is not expected that participants have extensive experience beyond issuing sub-grants, though a broad range of experiences will serve to strengthen the overall discussion expected in this workshop. Faculty: Pamela A.Webb, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Minnesota; Alexandra A. McKeown, Associate Dean for Research Administration, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health

WS #18

1:00 ­ 4:30 pm

Compliance

AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn strategies for identifying the best fund sources · Participants will learn how to plan for and manage a proposal project · Participants will develop proposal components utilizing good grantsmanship techniques Prerequisites: Participants should have a working knowledge of the grants and proposal process. Faculty: Denise A.Wallen, Senior Fellow, Center for Health Policy, University of New Mexico; E. Jacqueline Hinton, Technical Writer/Editor and Project Administrator, University of Utah Post-award Subawards - Beyond the Basics This workshop will start with examining some of the tougher issues that arise under subawards (subgrants) and move on to dealing with the niceties of issuing and managing subcontracts. Some of the topics that will be covered include resolving "gray" distinctions between vendor agreements and subawards, reviewing A-133 audit reports that are not clean to properly identify and address problematic issues via subaward language or corrective action plans; identifying and resolving mid-award issues that arise (invoicing, performance, etc.); dealing with premature terminations; subcontracting under the FAR and how it differs from issuing a subgrant, and working with international collaborators and subrecipients. It is expected that participants will actively engage in the discussion. Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will be able to read and analyze A-133 or similar reports, and take appropriate action · Participants will be able to recognize and tackle some key negotiation or problem areas that may arise in tougher subawards/subcontracts · Participants will understand the differences between issuing subawards under grants and issuing federal subcontracts · Participants will understand and begin to be able to address key issues that arise in international subawards

Developing An Effective Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Training Program What steps can you take to develop effective training and educational programs in responsible conduct of research (RCR) for your faculty, staff and students? This workshop will explain a variety of ethical issues encountered by researchers and will describe proven training techniques for providing the tools necessary to assess and work through those issues. In this highly interactive workshop, participants will be presented with the relevant rules and regulations pertaining to responsible conduct of research, will engage and discuss the ethical principles and relevant cases which justify those rules and regulations, and will understand how to design and implement instructional programs to ensure compliance with RCR policies.

WS #20

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of a variety of proven techniques for delivering effective research ethics and responsible conduct of research training programs · Participants will better understand the ethical issues encountered by researchers and how proper training can provide the tools necessary to assess and work through those issues · Participants will learn how to implement effective teaching methodologies and instructional technologies to enhance teaching and learning effectiveness for all research constituencies Prerequisites: A basic working knowledge and fundamental understanding of responsible conduct of research Faculty: Tony Onofrietti, Director of Research Education, University of Utah

WS #19

77

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

1:00 ­ 4:30 pm AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS (continued)

Compliance Managing Individual and Institutional Conflicts of Interest In the current research environment, institutions and individual researchers are participating in increasingly complex collaborations with outside entities that result in potential, perceived or actual conflicts of interest.You have policies and procedures for disclosures by individuals and some have policies and procedures for identifying institutional conflicts of interest.You're familiar with developing management plans for of individual conflicts of interest and are developing your plans for managing institutional conflicts of interest.What's next? Who negotiates, implements and monitors the management plans? What if an individual fails to meet their obligations? This workshop is intended for an audience that understands the basics of financial conflict of interest regulations, policies and management, and is interested in gaining more experience in managing and monitoring more complex individual conflicts of interest ­ as well as institutional conflicts.We will explore the public and industry response to conflicts of interest in research and the evolving issues associated with institutional conflicts of interest.We will discuss the impact of these responses on our institutions. In an interactive workshop, facilitated case studies will offer participants the opportunity to develop and implement management plans for a variety of scenarios. Discussions will also identify best practices for managing conflicts of interests and tools in use by the participants at their institutions.

WS #22

Compliance Export Control Reviews at the Proposal and Award Stages This workshop is a valuable new NCURA offering that invites participants to experience a cradle-to-grave, hands-on review of actual export-related provisions and clauses in practical settings: Have you ever looked at a solicitation and wondered what to do about clauses referencing foreign nationals or topic areas that might be export controlled? Should you review solicitations, RFPs, and proposals for export control issues, and what should you look for? What constitutes an export control issue? Is there anything you can do to mitigate the circumstances? Once the award arrives, what types of clauses trigger export control issues and how do you handle it? What are the considerations if the language can't be removed? What do you do next? This workshop will be organized to include group reviews of various solicitations, proposals, and awards, and a discussion of the implications of accepting restrictive language and how it impacts the ability to perform fundamental research at your campus. Strategies will be provided on how to deal with troublesome clauses often found in Department of Defense (DoD) NASA, and other awards. Steps to take will be outlined if troublesome clauses cannot be removed and export controlled work will be performed.

WS #21

Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of the current environment concerning conflict of interest · Participants will gain an understanding of the evolving issues regarding institutional conflicts of interest · Participants will learn to identify key areas within the institution that are impacted by conflict of interest management and monitoring · Participants will be better able to support the conflict of interest review process · Participants will learn techniques to be able to develop effective conflict of interest management and monitoring plans Prerequisites: Working knowledge of federal conflict of interest policies, regulations and guidance Faculty: Denise McCartney, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Administration,Washington University in St. Louis; Carol J. Blum, Director, Research Compliance and Administration, Council on Government Relations; Todd G. Guttman, Associate Vice President for Research Compliance,The Ohio State University

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn to identify export control issues in solicitations, proposals, and awards · Participants will learn strategies to deal with export control issues if identified in solicitations and proposals · Participants will understand the implications of export controlled restrictions and how it impacts the ability to do fundamental research · Participants will learn various analytical approaches and strategies for risk mitigation and negotiation of troublesome language often encountered in DoD, NASA, and other contracts · Participants will learn about possible options and steps to take if troublesome clauses can't be removed and export controlled work will be performed Prerequisites: Knowledge of and experience with FAR, DFAR, and export compliance regulations including ITAR and EAR. Faculty: Kay Ellis, University Export Controls Officer/Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Projects, University of Texas at Austin; David Brady, Director of the Office of Export and Secure Research Compliance,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Adelia Koch, Director of Export Compliance, California Institute of Technology

78

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

1:00 ­ 4:30 pm AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS (continued)

Compliance Subrecipient Monitoring Subrecipient monitoring is a complex, shared responsibility that begins well before a subaward is issued and extends throughout the life of the subaward.This workshop will focus on sharing and developing advanced tips, strategies and practical guidance for dealing with subrecipient monitoring issues.Through discussions, case studies and exercises, participants will work through implementation strategies, approaches and solutions in areas of pre-award risk analysis, as well as departmental and central post-award monitoring. Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn tips for developing internal processes and controls; · Participants will learn strategies for addressing pre-contracting monitoring issues · Participants will learn guidance for addressing day-to-day monitoring issues · Participants will learn guidance for addressing central monitoring responsibilities Prerequisites: · Knowledge of A-133 subrecipient monitoring requirements · Working knowledge of typical subawarding practices, roles and responsibilities Faculty: Michiko Pane, Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Research, Stanford University; Aimee Howell, Assistant Director for Finance, Center for Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland, College Park; Csilla M. Csaplár, Senior Contract and Grant Officer, Office of Sponsored Research, Stanford University Compliance Beyond the Basics: BIS & OFAC Licensing The intent of this workshop is to provide participants with practical tools and information that will strengthen their university export control programs.Topics to be covered include how to 1) identify departments, programs, and activities most likely to need licensing assistance; 2) determine when an export license is necessary; 3) apply for a license; and 3) review and use your license once you get it. Case studies and examples of common university activities requiring a license will be used to help participants work through the licensing process. Participants will be provided with copies of faculty presentation materials, as well as excerpts from the Export Administration Regulations, Embargo and Trade Sanction documents, International Traffic in Army Regulations, and copies of official forms. Program Level: Advanced

WS #23

Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain a greater understanding of the scope of controlled activities conducted by colleges and universities · Participants will practice making licensing determinations to improve their skills working with and interpreting the regulations and sanctions · Participants will become familiar with the forms and processes associated with requesting export licenses from the Bureau of Industry & Security, Department of Commerce, and the Office of Foreign Asset Controls, Department of the Treasury Prerequisites: Good understanding of the Export Administration Regulations, Embargoes and Trade Sanctions. Faculty: Kelly Hochstetler, Senior Research Compliance Officer, Office of Research Integrity, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Jessa Albertson, Export Control Analyst, Office of Export Controls, University of Oklahoma Departmental Preparing for Audits: Guidance for Central Office and Departments Life is good.Your institution submits proposals and receives awards.Your faculty and research support staff perform the research and spend the funds. Everything seems to be running smoothly.Then, the phone rings. The Inspector General's Office would like to "visit" to perform an audit. What do you do? While compliance concerns have always existed, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act has placed even greater scrutiny on universities and colleges and the research funding that is received. Audits are inevitable and preparing for the audit starts when the proposal is being drafted. Is your institution ready? It's essential for all members of the research partnership to be prepared. Not just the preand post-award offices, but the departmental research administrators and faculty.This workshop will focus on preparing for and surviving an external audit from multiple perspectives: the campus external audit coordinator, the departmental research administrator, and a research administration compliance specialist.We will also discuss audit follow up and lessons learned to help you achieve a more effective research compliance program.

WS #25

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will have an increased awareness of the possibly different perspectives of the auditor, central office personnel, researcher and department administrator · Participants will acquire information for successful audit preparation, including difficult and complex scenarios · Participants will learn how to use the audit report as a way to improve compliance programs Prerequisites: The successful workshop participant will already possess an understanding of: the research lifecycle, elements of a research budget, cost sharing, effort reporting, program income, and other special project requirements, reporting requirements and deliverables Faculty: Lynne Yorita, Audit Manager, University of California at Los Angeles; Michele Codd, Administrative Director, Institute for Software Integrated Systems,Vanderbilt University; Kallie Firestone, Senior Compliance Specialist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

WS #24

79

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

1:00 ­ 4:30 pm AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS (continued)

Federal

Federal Thinking Like a Grant Reviewer In the chain of events leading to a funded research project, none is more important than the meeting of a review panel (or study section, as NIH calls them) to discuss, evaluate and rank the proposals submitted to a given grant program.Yet the process by which this group arrives at its findings can be somewhat mysterious, even to investigators who have written proposals.What are the critical factors that lead to their support or rejection of any given proposal? How does a group of individuals come to a joint recommendation? Understanding these dynamics will equip the pre-award specialist with tools to interact more effectively with proposal writers, providing practical guidance on how they can attain a better score from reviewers.This workshop will use two approaches to create an insider's experience of grant reviewing: · NIH Mock Review Panel. A team of program officers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) will simulate the dynamics of a typical study section in reviewing a proposal.They will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a sample proposal and rank it using the new NIH scoring system. Additionally, the NIAID officers will discuss the rationale and practical impact of the new system. · Grant Reviewer Exercise. For this participational exercise, workshop attendees will read and evaluate a brief non-NIH grant proposal, using review criteria common to most funding agencies. First, individuals will do their own scoring; then small "review panels" will convene to develop a final score and recommendation for funding. Each team will then report its findings for full group discussion of similarities and differences. Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will be able to explain the practical application of the new NIH peer review system · Participants will be able list six review criteria commonly used by funding agencies · Participants will be able apply specific review criteria to assess the quality of a grant proposal · Participants will be able coach researchers on how to shape their proposals to address the sponsor's review criteria Prerequisites: Participants should have practical experience working with proposal writers Faculty: Robert Porter, Director of Research Development, University of Tennessee; Peter Jackson, Chief, AIDS Research Review Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Hortencia R. Hornbeak, Director, Scientific Review Program, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Mary Kirker, Director, Grants Management Program, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health; René Etcheberrigaray, Director, Division of Neuroscience, Development and Aging, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health; Betty Poon, Scientific Review Officer, AIDS Research Review Branch, National Institute of Allergy and 80 Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health

WS #26

WS #27 FAR and Federal Contracting This workshop will take participants deeper into the intricacies of federal contracting to examine issues that come into play after the contract has been executed by the institution.Topics covered will include: applicability of OMB Circulars to contracts; often overlooked reporting and prior approval requirements; dealing with stop-work and termination; issues associated with being a federal subcontractor; contract disputes and privity. Participants will also delve into a number of timely issues, including the revised "super" clauses on property and patent rights, and Recovery Act reporting requirements as implemented for contracts.

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: Upon conclusion of the workshop, participants will be able to: · Explain when OMB Circulars apply to federal contracts · Identify various types of reporting and prior approval requirements · Describe a contractor's rights and obligations in the event of stopwork or early termination · Explain a contractor's rights and obligations during a contract dispute Prerequisites: This is an intermediate course - a solid understanding of the FAR and of federal contracting principles is necessary in order to achieve the full benefits of participation in this workshop. Faculty: David J. Mayo, Director, Office of Sponsored Research, California Institute of Technology; John Hanold, Senior Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Programs,The Pennsylvania State University General Reviewing and Negotiating MTAs, NDAs, MOUs, IPAs, CRADAs, and OTAs This interactive workshop will allow the participant to learn the ins and outs of effectively creating and negotiating the terms and conditions of a variety of special agreements including intellectual property agreements, material transfer agreements, non-disclosure agreements, memorandums of understanding, inter-personnel agreements, cooperative research and development agreements and other transaction agreements. Case studies and testimonials from both the participants and workshop leaders will be used to explore the intellectual basis for the decision on the use of a particular instrument as well as exploring the specific terms and conditions.The workshop will be conducted in a room with a rectangle conference table with limited seating to encourage participation.

WS #28

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn tips for reviewing and negotiating terms and conditions of effective MTAs, NDAs, MOUs, IPAs, CRADAs, and OTAs · Participants will learn techniques for effectively negotiating these special agreements with industry and federal sponsors · Participants will partake in scenarios where they review agreements as part of a negotiation team Prerequisites: Working knowledge of contracts Faculty: Elaine L. Brock, Senior Associate Director, Division of Research Development and Administration, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor; Marianne R.Woods, Senior Associate Vice President for Research Administration,The University of Texas at San Antonio; Harlan M. Sands, Associate Provost for Administration and Finance, University of Alabama at Birmingham

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

1:00 ­ 4:30 pm AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS (continued)

General PUI and Minority Serving Institutions: Issues and Strategies OMB A-21! CAS standards! PI's leaving! Sub recipient monitoring! Ever wondered how "everyone else does it?"What topics keep you up at night? Do PUI's and Minority Serving Institutions have different issues than larger organizations or do we just need to approach the same issues with a different attitude because of differences in organizational culture? How DO others survive in this environment? Come join us as we discuss topics that are perennially a problem and the new ones that pop up every day.This workshop will focus on identifying and discussing what's hot right now in ensuring our organizations operate efficiently and effectively, adhere to the various sponsor guidelines, encourage our faculty and still manage to recruit and develop staff.This is a workshop you help design. Participants are encouraged to submit their questions, challenges,"this happened at another school" anecdotes, and successful survival tips ahead of time to a listserv that will be set up to help facilitate pre-workshop communication between participants and the workshop faculty. So, come prepared to share your successful experiences and gain an understanding of how other PUIs thrive and manage the research enterprise at their campuses as this will be a very interactive workshop.

WS #30

General Complex Issues in International Research Contracting International research agreements contain a number of aspects and nuances that are not present in traditional domestic American agreements.Whereas the latter contain many legal terms and concepts that are often addressed by applying mechanistic rules and which result in obstacles and bumps in negotiation, international agreements require flexibility and nuance in order to get "the deal done" in addition to a number of hidden risks and pitfalls for the unwary.This workshop will examine issues in international contracting. Emphasis will be placed on how to assess the importance of particular terms for specific research projects and how to build and communicate positions persuasively during difficult negotiations with counterparts for whom English may not be a first language and who may be unfamiliar with traditional contracting values. Communicating and advising internal university stakeholders of risks they may bear will also be discussed.The workshop will use case studies in international contracting to spur participation by attendees.The presenters will offer potential solutions to common deadlocks on such topics as publication rights, confidentiality, work product, intellectual property, liability and more. Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain a greater appreciation for the complexity and nuance of international research contracting · Participants will learn to use the techniques taught in this workshop to improve the efficiency and quality of contract negotiations · Participants will better understand the importance of particular terms for specific research projects Prerequisites: Previous experience working with international research agreements. Knowledge of contracting principles, negotiating techniques, and the meaning of common legal terms and clauses Faculty: James J. Casey, Jr., Director, Office of Contracts and Industrial Agreements,The University of Texas at San Antonio; Brian Warshawsky, Senior Contracting Officer, Office for Sponsored Research, Northwestern University; Lauren Wilson, Senior Associate Director, Office for Sponsored Programs,The University of Alabama

WS #29

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of how PUI's and Minority Serving Institutions manage emerging sponsor and governmental mandates · Participants will take away new ideas and concepts for implementation at home campus · Participants will learn to identify high risk areas that must be addressed Prerequisites: · Experience in managing a sponsored programs office (pre or post) at a PUI/Minority Serving Institution · Knowledge of general sponsor and federal requirements for compliance · A working knowledge of federal circulars OMB A-21, OMB A-110, OMB A-133 Faculty: Pam B.Whitlock, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, University of North Carolina at Wilmington (retired); Joseph C. McNicholas, Director, Office For Research and Sponsored Projects, Loyola Marymount University; Maria Thompson, Vice President, Research and Sponsored Programs,Tennessee State University

81

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

1:00 ­ 4:30 pm AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS (continued)

Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of the nuances involved in developing and managing a clinical trial budget and project expenses · Participants will learn how to manage multifaceted issues that often arise in a negotiation of trial agreements · Participants will learn about the complexities of managing federal clinical trials and clinical trial network grants · Participants will learn how clinical trials are closed-out and how to manage post-close-out institutional obligations and responsibilities Prerequisites: A working knowledge of clinical trials.This workshop will build on standard operating procedures and best practices Faculty: Tesheia Johnson, Chief Operations Officer,Yale Center for Clinical Investigation,Yale University; David Lynch, Associate Director, Industry Sponsored Research, Mayo Clinic Human Capital Negotiation Skills for Research Administrators This workshop is solely focused on strategies to assist research administrators become good negotiators.This workshop will be a blend of case studies and presentations designed to help attendees learn how to recognize potential negotiation pitfalls, and how to manage expectations and outcomes. Helpful techniques and tools will be shared with attendees to use when dealing with challenging negotiations.The case examples will come directly from the day-to-day working lives of research administrators, and will be used to demonstrate how to plan for negotiations, how to set a professional tone and approach, and how to appropriately communicate and discuss potentially troublesome issues. Attendees will have ample opportunity to share their stories and strategies. Program Level: Basic Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn the different contexts, settings, and parties that affect negotiations · Participants will learn how to prepare for both the substance and process of negotiations that commonly occur in research administration environments · Participants will learn how to set appropriate objectives for negotiations · Participants will practice negotiating techniques Prerequisites: None Faculty: Garrett R. Sanders, Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs Operations, Research Foundation of SUNY; Lisa Benson, Director, Grants and Sponsored Programs, Connecticut Children's Medical Center; Terry Dehnel, Departmental Grants Manager, Connecticut Children's Medical Center

General Developing Training Programs: Multi-Modal Delivery and Assessment How are institutions developing or adapting existing training programs given the current economic climate? This workshop will help you identify curriculum needs, define learning objectives, design program content, create support materials and evaluate your training efforts. Most importantly, we will show you that even in today's economy you can have fun and create excitement in your research training programs using exercises, case studies and other tools to keep your audience engaged. We also will discuss the importance of training with ever increasing and changing expectation of the federal government.

WS #31

Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn innovative ways to develop or adapt training programs · Participants will understand how to identify curriculum needs, define learning objective, design program content, create support materials and develop evaluation tools Prerequisites: A working knowledge and fundamental understanding of basic research administration training programs. Faculty: Danielle McElwain, Research Development Training Manager, Office of Research and Health Sciences, University of South Carolina; Jill F.Tincher, Senior Director, Research Administration & Sponsored Programs Education, University of Miami School of Medicine; Julie B. Cole, Director of Research Costing Compliance, Duke University General - Clinical WS #32 Clinical Trials: Practical Solutions for Complex Problems Clinical trials are conducted in a variety of institutional settings, and if your organization is engaged in clinical trials it is likely that you face complex problems, issues and challenges on a regular basis whether you are a research administrator in a central sponsored projects office, in a medical school department, or in a teaching hospital or research institute. This interactive workshop will examine key administrative, financial, and regulatory issues that arise in the planning, funding and conduct of clinical trials, including: The unique complex regulatory environment for clinical trials; Key negotiation issues that often arise in a clinical trial agreement; Managing research conducted under INDs with faculty acting as the clinical trial sponsor; The intricacies of managing a clinical trial budget and expenditures; Exploring institutional models to manage regulatory challenges such as research billing, ClinicalTrials.gov regulations, contracting with VAs, and NIH clinical trials; Electronic tools and solutions to manage the clinical trials enterprise; Closing-out clinical trials. In addition, the experienced workshop faculty will provide participants with tips, tools and practical solutions to address the problems they face, so come prepared to share your most challenging issues and problems with the faculty and fellow participants.

WS #33

82

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WORKSHOPS

Sunday, October 31, 2010

1:00 ­ 4:30 pm AFTERNOON WORKSHOPS (continued)

Thursday, November 4, 2010

8:30 am ­ 4:30 pm

Federal

FULL DAY WORKSHOPS

Post-award Effort Reporting and Management Effort reporting is a topic that at first pass, seems to be a simple concept: perform work on a sponsored agreement; charge or cost-share some associated salary; and then perform a periodic certification that work was indeed performed. However, those with any experience with effort reporting know that there are a number of factors that can quickly reduce this administrative exercise to a bureaucratic nightmare. Federal regulations and other related guidance have not historically proven to be of much assistance in providing illumination on common questions and complications. And, to top it all off, effort reporting is typically one of the first areas that auditors focus on, as it represents the primary method to validate nearly two-thirds of the direct costs of research.This workshop will review the requirements associated with effort reporting and how to meet these requirements.We will then discuss common issues related to effort reporting at research institutions, and strategies for addressing these issues.The intent of the workshop is to focus less on theory and more on practicalities, so case studies will be used to illustrate several of the concepts. Program Level: Intermediate Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of some of the expectations of the federal government and other research sponsors related to the confirmation of costs related to personal services (i.e., effort reporting) · Participants will gain an understanding of the basic requirements of institutional effort reporting "systems", including policies and procedures · Participants will gain an understanding of common issues associated with effort reporting ­ how these issues have come to light and potential methods for addressing them Prerequisites: Basic knowledge of the effort reporting process and requirements; some understanding of the complexities associated with meeting federal requirements Faculty: Jennifer Hubert, Director, Higher Education Consulting, Huron Consulting Group; Joseph Gindhart, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Finance and Director, Sponsored Projects Accounting,Washington University in St. Louis; David Kennedy, Director of Costing Policy, Council on Governmental Relations

WS #34

NIH Day The NIH team is on the field, coaches are ready to provide inside tips and guidance, and we're looking for some team players from the extramural research community who are ready for the latest information and strategies for success! Educational and interactive activities with senior NIH officials await those who join us on November 4, 2010 at the Washington Hilton. Don't miss this special training day to learn more about the NIH grants process, policy, and programs. NIH officials will provide an insider's look at NIH, including history, organizational structure, the application submission and assignment process, peer review enhancements, and high priority initiatives at NIH. NIH grants management and program officials will discuss the ins and outs of managing research grants in an increasingly complex environment and how to address less common situations that may impact your institution. Hear the latest updates on eRA Commons functions, new policies, updated resources, and look ahead at expected changes. All the team players (NIH staff and workshop participants) will join together for lunch and learn from one another. In the afternoon, attendees have the opportunity to meet "Face-to-Face" with an NIH panel comprised of eRA subject matter experts, policy, grants management & program officers representing various NIH Institutes/Centers (ICs). During this workshop, NIH staff will lead a discussion on how eRA, grants management, review, and program staff work together to manage application and awards within NIH Institutes. Highlights will include preaward and post-award issues and guidance to help participants return to the office with useful information. Q&A will allow final questions to be answered before everyone leaves the field! Program Level: Overview Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain a better understanding of policies and procedures affecting the NIH grants process from application to postaward · Participants will have the opportunity for personal interaction with NIH staff and be able to obtain insight and suggestions for managing research grants in an increasingly complex environment Prerequisites: None. Participation is limited. Pre-registration is required. Faculty: Cynthia Dwyer, Communications Specialist, Division of Communications and Outreach, Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health; Megan Columbus, Acting Director, Division of Communications and Outreach/NIH Program Manager for Electronic Receipt of Grant Applications and Agency Integration, Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health; Scarlett Gibb, Lead, Customer Relationship Manager, ERA External Services Team, Office of Research Information Systems, National Institutes of Health; Sheri Cummins, Customer Relationship Manager for the Electronic Research Administration, Office of Research Information Systems, National Institutes of Health

WS #35

83

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

WORKSHOPS

Thursday, November 4, 2010

8:30 am ­ 4:30 pm FULL DAY WORKSHOPS (continued)

Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 5:00 pm SENIOR FORUMS

This forum is intended for senior level research administrators responsible for or directly involved in creating policy. It is intended to be an interactive environment. There is no fee for this forum but advanced registration is required. Participation is limited. Economic Development Issues Governments are turning more and more to universities as engines for regional, local, and national economic development.Why? Because they recognize that in today's global economy universities play an everincreasing role in the creation of new knowledge and new technologies that keep communities, states, and countries competitive in a global market. In addition, public support for higher education is being seen more as a business arrangement that requires a more definitive quid pro quo. Society invests heavily in education and research - and they want to see that education delivering a higher skilled work force and research delivering technologies that improve the quality of life and create more jobs for the taxpayers. It's a new world - and one that most universities are going to have to learn to adjust to, and we are not usually all that good in adopting transformative change in a timeframe less than a generation long.The forum panel will present what we've learned in the U.S. and globally about the interrelationship and interdependence of universities, industries, and governments and ask participants to share their experiences as well.Topics will cover models for analyzing and implementing tech transfer, and metrics to evaluate the research enterprise, including tech-transfer activities (noting that level of technology transfer discussion depends on the institutional model of how technology transfer interacts/connects with sponsored programs offices). Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will acquire a better understanding of the issues and vital roles of higher education in economic development at community/regional levels · Participants will learn what STAR Metrics are and their role in measuring the science impact on economic outcomes · Participants will learn about models for analyzing and implementing technology transfer, and metrics to evaluate the research enterprise Prerequisites: Intended for senior level research administrators. Participation is limited. Pre-registration is required. Panel: James J. Casey, Jr., Director, Office of Contracts and Industrial Agreements,The University of Texas at San Antonio; Julia Lane, Program Director, Science of Science & Innovation Policy Program, National Science Foundation; Kevin Wozniak, Director, Office of Technology Licensing, Georgia Institute of Technology; Anthony Boccanfuso, Executive Director, UniversityIndustry Demonstration Partnership

Senior Forum

Federal

WS #36

NSF Day

NSF Day at the NCURA Annual Meeting is a workshop concept designed by senior NSF and NCURA program planners determined to distill all the best ingredients of NSF Regional Grants Conferences and NCURA Workshops.The workshop begins with NSF program officers presenting the "do's and don'ts" of successful proposal preparation, submission and review. NSF Program Officers will also focus on a number of NSF crosscutting programs such as CAREER, GOALI and REU.This will be followed by an in-depth discussion of NSF policies and procedures of importance to research administrators.The workshop will be rounded out with important discussions regarding compliance issues and the use and features of Research.gov. Program Level: Overview Learning Objectives: · Participants will learn the components of a successful proposal · Participants will understand the NSF Merit Review process · Participants will be familiar with pre- and post-award policies and procedures and compliance issues · Participants will learn about a number of NSF crosscutting programs; and learn about NSF's current and future plans for Research.gov Prerequisites: None. Participation is limited. Pre-registration is required. Faculty: Jean Feldman, Head, Policy Office, Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management, National Science Foundation; Jeremy Leffler, Outreach Specialist, Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support, Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management, National Science Foundation

#1

84

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

WORKSHOPS AND SENIOR FORUMS

Monday, November 1, 2010

2:45 ­ 5:00 pm SENIOR FORUMS (continued)

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 am ­ Noon SENIOR FORUMS

This forum is intended for senior level research administrators responsible for or directly involved in creating policy. It is intended to be an interactive environment. There is no fee for this forum but advanced registration is required. Participation is limited. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Where Are We Headed? Since its inception in February 2009,The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has been a significant change in the research funding model for American universities and research institutes. As research administrators, we already have faced the significant challenges of ARRA proposal preparation and submission, award set-up, and financial reporting. As we approach the second year since its launch, what challenges lie ahead? Topics for discussion include: (1) the impact of ARRA funding on our F&A rates (2) economic impact of ARRA and the end of ARRA on our university and state budgets (3) political fallout of ARRA funding and reporting (3) keeping faculty engaged in grant submissions after ARRA (4) handling program or funding gaps (5) the increased audit and review of ARRA funding and (6) the future of grant reporting.This senior advanced forum will provide an opportunity for indepth discussion of these topics and others as we explore the various ways ARRA continues to impact the way our faculty do research and the way that research is administered.

Senior Forum

This forum is intended for senior level research administrators responsible for or directly involved in creating policy. It is intended to be an interactive environment. There is no fee for this forum but advanced registration is required. Participation is limited.

Senior Forum #2 Truth and/or Consequences in Human Subjects Research Compliance This senior forum will address human subject compliance in research. It will include a review of the federal regulations and the ethical principles and procedures of the IRB system. It will also explore the consequences for both the PI and the institution when the best plans of protection go awry.

#3

Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will acquire a better understanding of the intricate issues surrounding the use of human subjects in research · Participants will obtain knowledge concerning consequences when an unanticipated outcome occurs · Participants will learn new strategies for effective quality improvement of their human subjects program Prerequisites: This senior forum is intended for senior level research administrators with experience in human subject administration or supervision responsibility of human subject administration. Participation is limited. Pre-registration is required. Panel: Dorothy A. Spurlock, Director, Research & Sponsored Programs,The University of Toledo; Paula J. Roberts, Associate Vice President for Research/Director, Director of the Office of Research Services and Administration, University of Oregon; Freda E.Yoder, Human Subjects Protection Analyst, Office of Human Research Protections; Jody Freeman Power, Executive Director, Duke University Health System Institutional Review Board, Duke University; Michelle Stickler, Director, Office of Research Subjects Protections,Virginia Commonwealth University

Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will hear how the ARRA funding has impacted the research enterprise to date · Participants will discuss their approaches to handling the changing research environment resulting from the ARRA funding · Participants will discuss the long-term consequences of the ARRA funding Prerequisites: Intended for senior level research administrators. Participation is limited. Pre-registration is required. Panel: Robert Andresen, Assistant Director, Post-award Services, Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Wisconsin-Madison; David Kennedy, Director of Costing Policy, Council on Governmental Relations; Susan G. Ross, Director, Evanston Campus, Office for Sponsored Research, Northwestern University; Mary Beth Rudofski, Director, Huron Consulting Group

85

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

SENIOR FORUMS

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

8:30 am ­ Noon SENIOR FORUMS (continued)

This forum is intended for senior level research administrators responsible for or directly involved in creating policy. It is intended to be an interactive environment. There is no fee for this forum but advanced registration is required. Participation is limited. Being a Good Boss in Tough Economic Times The national economic downturn escalates challenges to already lean university research administration organizations and, in a number of states, demands unprecedented budget cuts. Even highly endowed schools are shaken and have entered re-assessment periods that threaten past unquestioned support functions. After years of investing time in risk assessment, succession planning,"More With Less Workshops" and discussion groups on "educating-up", senior management NCURA members find themselves in a compressed, depressed, highly-stressed environment of local budget intransigence paired with increased reporting, continued compliance mandates and shrinking success rates out in the departments.The goals of this interactive time together are to inventory current and planned coping strategies, share resulting experiences (both positive and negative), rate strategies worth keeping and generate a small list of new ideas to take back to the office. Part 1: Fairness, Integrity, and Creativity during Reorganizations, Furloughs, and Layoffs The focus of the first half of the workshop will be strategies and best practices for: 1) Avoiding the worst-case with out of the box solutions 2) Administering the worst case scenario with integrity Discussions will be held around: · What senior management can bring to the table when asked to prioritize employee positions in the face of budget cuts · The value of your creativity in the face of the linear status quo (i.e. your nutty ideas ARE appreciated by your boss!) · Risk and compliance issues in relation to staff reduction decisions (i.e. which functions are expendable when "risk" ceases to open the purse) · Anticipating new or unfamiliar risk & compliance issues that may arise if staffing becomes TOO creative After our Part I discussions and a break, we will focus on something more familiar, yet never stale. Part II---The Old Bad News was Freezes: Motivation and Feeling Lucky on the Frozen Tundra How can we continue to engage, motivate and inspire our over-extended team of raise-less, promotion-free professionals and support staff? Facilitators will lead an exploratory discussion of: · Non-monetary perks and motivators · Mentoring and training in preparation for future advancement · Strategies for avoiding or coping with turnover in high-volume situations · Priority setting on OSP functions · Involving school and department staff in strategies for managing transactions · Use of metrics when re-assessing and re-organizing work loads Program Level: Advanced

Senior Forum

#4

Learning Objectives: · Participants will acquire a broad overview of actions currently used to cope with budget cuts · Participants will gain insights into potential strategies for your own organization · Participants will receive some nuts and bolts information on unfamiliar practices such as furloughing · Participants will learn more about retention practices and budget neutral professional development · Participants will discuss employee motivation techniques and best practices Prerequisites: Intended for senior level research administrators. Participation is limited. Pre-registration is required. Panel: Cindy White, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs, Belmont University; Bruce Morgan, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research, University of California-Irvine; Dan Nordquist, Assistant Vice Provost for Research & Director, Office of Grant & Research Development,Washington State University

1:15 ­ 5:00 pm

SENIOR FORUMS

This forum is intended for senior level research administrators responsible for or directly involved in creating policy. It is intended to be an interactive environment. There is no fee for this forum but advanced registration is required. Participation is limited.

Senior Forum #5 Managing Change in Sponsored Programs We restructure our offices.We target resources to solve specific problems.We engage in strategic planning.We implement new systems. And then what happens? The rules change; there's a budget cut; we get a new boss; the system has to be reconfigured. Everything changes.We have to re-think our priorities, re-target the resources, re-examine our strategies, and generally put on a happy face ­ all before 9:00 in the morning. How, then can we continue to make progress towards our goals? How do we encourage staff? How can we help them and ourselves embrace the changes? How do we create an environment that's receptive to change? This senior forum will offer an opportunity for a discussion about these issues that are so integral to the success of our offices. Please bring your ideas, questions, and suggestions and join in this conversation with the panel.

Program Level: Advanced Learning Objectives: · Participants will gain an understanding of the issues surrounding change management · Participant will share a several perspectives on adapting to changes initiated from within and outside the organization Prerequisites: This fourm is intended for senior level departmental and central research administrators who have experience working with a wide variety of sponsored programs issues, including staffing and resource management. Participation is limited. Pre-registration is required. Panel: Kim Moreland, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Administration, University of Wisconsin ­ Madison; David W. Richardson, Associate Vice President for Research, Pennsylvania State University; Cordell Overby, Associate Provost for Research and Graduate Studies, University of Delaware

86

AT THE CONFLUENCE OF CREATION AND COLLABORATION

NCURA REGIONS

REGION I, NEW ENGLAND

States in this Region include: Connecticut; Maine; Massachusetts; New Hampshire; Rhode Island;Vermont Chair: Chair-elect: Treasurer: Secretary: Susan Zipkin, Brigham & Women's Hospital Bethanne Giehl, University of Massachusetts Medical School Kevin Brodrick, Dana Farber Cancer Institute Sara Clabby, Northeastern University

REGION IV, MID-AMERICA

States in this Region include: Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri; Nebraska; North Dakota; Ohio; South Dakota; Wisconsin Chair: Chair-elect: Treasurer: Christa Johnson, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville David Ngo, University of Wisconsin-Madison Steven Geiger, University of Kansas Medical Center Research Institute Treasurer-elect: Shannon Sutton, Western Illinois University Secretary: Michelle Schoenecker, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

REGION II, MID-ATLANTIC

States in this Region include: Delaware; Maryland; New Jersey; New York; Pennsylvania;Washington, D.C.;West Virginia Martin Williams, William Paterson University Alexandra McKeown, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Treasurer: Holly Benze, Johns Hopkins University Treasurer-elect: Mary Holleran, West Virginia University Secretary Anne Albinak, Johns Hopkins University Chair: Chair-elect:

REGION V, SOUTHWESTERN

States in this Region include: Oklahoma;Texas Chair: Chair-elect: Treasurer: Secretary: Marianne Woods, University of Texas at San Antonio Jeremy Forsberg, University of Texas at Arlington Carolyn Ivey, University of Houston Downtown Joanne Palmer, Texas State University-San Marcos

REGION VI,WESTERN

States in this Region include: Alaska; California; Hawaii; Nevada; Oregon; Washington Chair: Chair-elect: Treasurer: Treasurer-elect: Secretary: Secretary-elect: Sinh Simmons, University of Washington Jeri Muniz, University of Southern California Csilla Csaplar, Stanford University Michiko (Mich) Pane, Stanford University Maggie Griscavage, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Joseph McNicholas, Loyola Marymount University

REGION III, SOUTHEASTERN

States in this Region include: Alabama; Arkansas; Florida; Georgia; Kentucky; Louisiana; Mississippi; North Carolina; Puerto Rico; South Carolina;Tennessee;Virginia;Virgin Islands Chair: Chair-elect: Treasurer: Treasurer-elect: Secretary: Jennifer Shambrook, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Riddick (Rick) Smiley, East Carolina University Cindy Hope, University of Alabama Erica Gambrell, University of Alabama Beryline Temples, University of Central Arkansas

REGION VII, ROCKY MOUNTAIN

States in this Region include: Arizona; Colorado; Idaho; Montana; New Mexico; Utah;Wyoming Chair: Chair-elect: Secretary/Treasurer: Debra Murphy, Arizona State University Tim Edwards, University of Montana Christine Pacheco, University of New Mexico

87

NCURA 52ND ANNUAL MEETING · October 31­November 3 · Washington, DC

NCURA LEADERSHIP

NCURA PAST PRESIDENTS & THEIR INSTITUTIONS AT THE TIME OF PRESIDENCY

Raymond Ewell, 1960 SUNY, Buffalo William Wheadon, 1961 Syracuse University Donald Murray, 1962-63 University of Pennsylvania Raymond Woodrow, 1963-64 Princeton University Sidney Roth, 1965-66 New York University George R. Holcomb, 1967-68 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill David Bacon, 1969-70 Stanford University John F. Adams, 1971-72 Georgia State University Clark A. McCartney, 1973-74 University of Southern California Perry B. Hendricks, 1975 Pacific Lutheran University Eric R. Rude, 1976 University of Wisconsin-Madison Harold B. Hunnicutt, 1977 Arizona State University Margery E. Hoppin, 1978 University of Iowa Truman E. Cook, 1979 Southern Methodist University Dennis W. Barnes, 1980 University of Virginia Frederick Sudermann, 1981 Wichita State University Anthony Merritt, 1982 University of Pennsylvania Mark Elder, 1983 University of Oklahoma Edward L. MacCordy, 1984 Washington University Earl J. Freise, 1985 University of Nebraska-Lincoln Mary Ellen Sheridan, 1986 SUNY at Binghamton Allen J. Sinisgalli, 1987 Princeton University Julie T. Norris, 1988 University of Houston Jane A.Youngers, 1989 University of Rochester C. Frederick Bentley II, 1990 Stanford University Stephen Erickson, 1991 Harvard University Ardis M. Savory, 1992 University of South Carolina Henry O. Hooper, 1993 Northern Arizona University Steven H. Smartt, 1994 Vanderbilt University Richard P. Seligman, 1995 University of California, Los Angeles Kim Moreland, 1996 University of Kansas Stephen Hansen, 1997 Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville Mary B. Husemoller, 1998 University of Nevada, Reno Cheryl-Lee Howard, 1999 The Johns Hopkins University Nancy L.Wilkinson, 2000 Emory University Regina H.White, 2001 University of Vermont F. John Case, 2002 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Robert A. Killoren, Jr., 2003 Pennsylvania State University Patrick W. Fitzgerald, 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jerry Fife, 2005 Vanderbilt University Laura Wade, 2006 University of Houston Pamela B.Whitlock, 2007 University of North Carolina at Wilmington David J. Mayo, 2008 California Institute of Technology Denise J. Clark, 2009 University of Maryland College Park

2010 Officers and Board of Directors

President David Richardson Pennsylvania State University Vice President Judy L. Fredenberg University of Montana Treasurer Barbara A. Cole Stanford University Secretary Barbara H. Gray Valdosta State University Immediate Past President Denise J. Clark University of Maryland College Park Executive Director Kathleen M. Larmett National Council of University Research Administrators Board of Directors Robert C. Andresen University of Wisconsin - Madison Kathi Delehoy Colorado State University Thomas W. Egan Massachusetts Institute of Technology Betty A. Farbman New York University Brenda Kavanaugh University of Rochester Katherine Ho Stanford University Robert P. Lowman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Heather M. Offhaus University of Michigan ­ Ann Arbor Bruce A. Morgan University of California ­ Irvine Debbie Newton The University of Tulsa Thomas J. Roberts Florida Gulf Coast University Georgette Sakumoto University of Hawaii Michelle S. Vazin Vanderbilt University Anthony F. Ventimiglia Auburn University

88

Information

Layout 1

88 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

349652


You might also be interested in

BETA
The Quarterly Update
Huron Consulting Group Inc. 2007 Annual Report
Layout 1