CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2009-10 Faculty Senate
March 25, 2010
RSJ 304
Process for Consideration of Consent Agenda Items:

All items on the Consent Agenda are action items. A single vote for the consent agenda passes all items
listed on the agenda. Any senator may request an agenda item be pulled for discussion and held for a
separate vote.

Prior to a vote on the consent agenda, the Chair will open the floor for comment from senators including
requests to pull items.

Once all items to be pulled have been identified, the Chair will call for a vote on the remaining Consent
Agenda items.

Discussion and action on items pulled will be managed individually.
1.
Request to Approve the February 18, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
Request to Approve the University Administrative Manual Revisions:
vetted by the UAM Committee & the Executive Board
Please note that additions are underlined
Deletions are strikethroughs
a. 1,116 Policy on Cost Transfers for Sponsored Projects
b. 2,516 Policy for Reassignment of Administrators
c. 2,907 Graduate Assistant Allocation Policy
d. 1,118 University Cost Chare Policy
e. 6,513 Policy on Training for Research Compliance
Senate Office Grievance Procedures
Action/Enclosure
3.
Page 1 of 21
Consent Agenda
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
3-25-10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 25, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #1
University of Nevada, Reno, Faculty Senate February 18, 2010 Meeting Minutes
1.
Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Eric Albers (DHS), Mike Bennett (A & F), Jane Davidson (CLA), Dean Dietrich (DEV), Isabelle Favre
(CLA), Stephani Foust (SS), Tom Harris (CABNR), Eric Herzik (Chair Elect), Julie Hogan (DHS), Stephen
Jenkins (COS), Yanyao Jiang (EN), Maureen Kilkenny (CABNR), Tom Kozel (SOM), Doina Kulick (SOM),
Doina Kulick for Leah Skladany (SOM), Alex Kumjian (COS), Stephen Lafer (COE), Kami Larsen (SOM), Amy
McFarland (SOM), Swatee Naik (COS), Louis Niebur (CLA), Elliott Parker (Chair), Maggie Ressel/Donnie
Curtis(Proxy) (Lib), David Ryfe/Rosemary/McCarthy (Proxy) (JO), Madeleine Sigman-Grant (COOP), Valerie
Smith (VPR), Jim Sundali for Judy Strauss (COBA), Lucy Walker (Pres), Lucy Walker for Janet Sanderson
(Pres), Jill Wallace (IT), Valerie Weinstein (CLA).
Absent: Bill Follette (Ex-Officio).
2. Visit with Regent Andrea Anderson:
Regent Andrea Anderson was appointed by Governor Gibbons in August 2009. She is familiar with UNR as
her son attended and graduated from here. She has worked in higher education for the last 25 years, 18 of
which were at CSN. Senators thanked Regent Anderson for coming to the senate especially at such a difficult
time. Some of our students feel that we are letting them down. Anderson responded that she is unsure how
much the regents can do other than to soften the blow as much as possible. Discussion centered on
pressuring the legislature, earmarking taxes for education, what the legislators might do, all states believe that
higher education is the solution, not the problem. Anderson said that since the regents were subject to the
open meeting laws, they could not poll each other to see how everyone was leaning. She doesn’t feel that any
one institution will be harmed more than another, nor if cuts will be across the board. Is there a way that faculty
could help provide information to the regents. Anderson said to keep emailing the regents and the legislators
with pertinent information. Kilkenny said that her report addressed the inability to separate the private and
public sectors. In Nevada we are predominantly a service industry, we don’t make a lot and they must go hand
in hand. J. Herzik asked if financial exigency was off the table and if there are institutions that want financial
exigency, can it be done by individual institutions? Anderson responded that she doesn’t think anyone is in
favor of financial exigency and she does not know if it can be declared at an institutional level. There was
discussion on furloughs for grant funded faculty and whether or not the issue might be revisited by the regents.
Some of the capital funds might be tapped to ease the financial pain, She was aware of the difficulties faced by
grant funded faculty and their furloughs. The senate thanked Regent Anderson for her time
3. Code Change Proposals:
At the January 21, 2010 meeting, the senate decided to table the vote on the code changes and just discuss
them. The executive board wanted to follow up and come up with some recommendations for the senate to
vote on.
Set 1: was the least controversial and the executive board felt that it could be brought forward to the President
and allow him to pursue it, but the vote for that would not be until the March meeting.
MOTION: Dean/Kilkenny. To bring the items of set one to the full senate for a vote at the March 25, 2010
meeting.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Set 2: was to create a process called financial review, which was a combination between curricular review and
Financial Exigency. The executive board recommended that this be held until the current review process has
been completed and then the proposal could be sent to the Bylaws and Code Committee for finalizing and then
brought to the senate for approval or disapproval.
Page 2 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
Set 3: The executive board recommended that the proposal go to the AFPPP committee for further review and
for them to bring it to the senate in their May Report. Dean Dietrich recommended: to send the items in set
three to the AFPPP Committee for further review, discussion, and any recommended action.
There was discussion on the process of the items brought to the senate. Many of them just appear to be
shuffled back and forth between the senate, the executive board and the committees. and that the items
sometimes went back and were never brought back to the senate.
MOTION: Kumjian/Larsen. To send both of these back to the appropriate committees, set 2 to Bylaws and
Code and Set 3 to AFPPP. Hogan would like to have these two items separated and voted on separately and
asked that a friendly amendment be made to that affect. Both Kumjian and Larsen agreed.
MOTION: Kumjian/Larsen. To send set 2 back to the Bylaws and Code Committee at the appropriate time
(once the current review process had been completed).
ACTION: Passed unanimously
MOTION: Kumjian/Larsen. To send set 3 to the AFPPP committee.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
4. Chairs Report:
Faculty Senate Chair Elliott Parker reported on budget issues:
 The Governor’s proclamation for a special session outlined 10%more in budget cuts, furloughs extended to
all personnel, some benefit reductions and a few more things.
 The special session was scheduled to meet February 23, 2010.
 The Regents meet March 4 & 5, 2010 and had been looking at code changes, regarding Financial
Exigency. Nothing would be decided until the budget numbers were available from the legislature.
 Stephen Lafer and Eli Reilly organized an event for this week called “An Educated Response” A student
rally was also scheduled for Friday, February 19, 2010.
 ASUN wanted faculty to help advertise their student elections. Primary Elections: Marcy 3 & 4, 2010 and
General Elections March 10 & 11, 2010.
 The week of February 15 – 19, 2010 was retirement week.
 The Bylaws and Code Revisions and the Reconsideration Revisions, and the UAM Revisions (re:
committees) have not been completed yet.
 Senator Beer Night: did senators want to continue this?
 The Curricular Review Process was on the agenda and would be discussed after the consent agenda.
5. Consent Agenda:
MOTION: Dietrich/Curtis. To approve the consent agenda as published
ACTION: Passed unanimously
6. The Role of the Senate in the Curricular Review Process:
Once we are told to cut budgets by a specific amount it is Parker’s understanding that the process will happen
in this manner.
1. The Provost (in consultation with the Deans and President) will make written proposals to eliminate
academic programs, majors, whatever. These will go to the affected departments, who will get a
chance to respond with reasons why they should not be cut.
2. Colleges are required to have a committee review the proposals and the responses, and the faculty
have to vote. This is required by bylaws, but I don’t know what new information we expect to come
from this step.
3. The Senate will name a committee to review all this, and make a recommendation to the Senate. We
should focus on whether the process was objective, fair, and followed, but we can also make
recommendations to save some programs if there is new information that persuades us that some cuts
are particularly unwise.
Page 3 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
4. The President (in consultation with the Provost and others) will review our recommendations, and make
the decisions.
5. We want to finish as quickly as we can, because dragging it out hurts the other programs that are not
affected but remain uncertain, and we want to give affected faculty as much notice as possible. Code
required a Dec. 1 notice, but that is not enough time. Eric also wants it to all be on my watch, but he
will be Chair during the next session of the Legislature, which won’t be pretty either.
6. Once the decisions are made by the President, The Code and Bylaws also lay out a formal
reconsideration process afterwards.
How should the Senate Review Committee be constituted? Should it be the Executive Board, or should we
elect a different committee?
Should senators from the affected units be able to come to this committee to make their cases, or should
they only consider the written materials?
Should the Senate’s vote be proposal-by-proposal, limited to endorsing the recommendation of the
committee or not, or some hybrid?
Should the session be open, or closed?
Parker laid out the curricular review process as he understood it. Once the numbers were given to us then the
process would begin. The idea was to look at the productivity of the departments. The proposals were being
discussed by central administration and more cuts than were needed would be proposed. Concern was
expressed that the administrative units would not have much feedback if this was left in the hands of the vice
presidents. Would there be faculty input on the closing of administrative units? For example when they closed
the math and writing center, there was not academic faculty input. Senators asked if there was a timeline?
There were many rumors going around but at this point, no decisions had been made. Senators asked about
the criteria that would be used and how objective were they? Would administration look at national standards?
There were a couple of suggestions to compose the committee with an expanded purview to include other
areas that might be wasting money,
There was discussion about how the timeline, time for discussion and if a special meeting was called, could it
be in a room where there was video conferencing available.
7. Visit with President Glick:
President Glick remarked that both Maureen Kilkenny and Jodi Herzik had changed seats and some time when
you change seats you change your mind. This budget process will be the worst of all processes. His biggest
fear with this process was that it would not just be a one year problem; it would go into the next biennium.
According to Senator Raggio the state would go into the next biennium three billion dollars short and said that
there needed to be tax increases. The state needed to make real lasting cuts. A senator asked if there were
ways to save money besides cutting programs? Glick responded that it was difficult in some areas such as
maintenance or heating costs due to the age of many of our buildings. Solar power is not a huge money
savings yet. The need to develop a renewable energy center was needed through research. Glick believed that
the 22% budget cut was off the table and that it might look more like 10%. An increase in sales tax to a worker
making $50,000 would amount to around 88 million dollars. The legislature would begin their special session
Tuesday, February 23, 2010. Administration was waiting until they had a number before they would come up
with a list of programs that might be cut. Neither the Board of Regents nor the public would know which
programs until after the faculty, staff and students involved in those programs knew.
Questions and Discussion:
Stephani Foust asked if other states were having the same experiences as UNR. Glick replied that very few
were. ASU was adding three new campuses, Hawaii declared Financial Exigency. Kumjian asked why Glick
felt that the next biennium would be worse. Glick responded that the tax increases would sunset, there would
be the loss of the borrowed money, that would need to be paid back; there would be roll-ups and no more
stimulus funds. The university would have to stop doing some things and narrow the focus of the university to
become top quality. There was concern that small programs would be cut first. Maureen Kilkenny asked about
what portion of the general funds budget was paid for by students’ tuition. Glick responded with this example:
10, 000 students paying $5,000 per year which equals $50,000,000 of which the state takes 60% which is
Page 4 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
$30,000,000. About 15% of the general fund is tuition. Media rounds should be made to students, parents and
business leaders. Glick does not believe that the state hiring freeze should pertain to us. Would the regents
consider closing down some community colleges? Glick doesn’t know. There was discussion about having a
differential tuition for programs. Such as the MBA, should be market based.
8. Rank 0 Committee Report:
Link to the Report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/rank0/Rank%200%20Faculty%20recommendations.doc
William Wallace thanked the committee members: Leigh Anderson, Stacy Burton, Tom Cargill, Mae Gustin,
Jeff Mortensen, Melissa O’Brien, Ron Phaneuf, Julie Stoughton, and Valerie Weinstein (senate liaison).
One of the committee members filed a minority report, which the committee had not seen yet. The senate
forwarded the minority report to the full committee.
Link to the Minority Report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/rank0/Cargill%20Minority%20ReportFebruary%208,%202010.doc
MOTION: Kumjian/E. Herzik. To accept the report as published.
ACTION: Passed, 1 abstention.
There were a couple of troublesome recommendations R 10 & R 26. These set term limits on Rank 0 teaching
faculty in contingent positions and Rank 0 faculty with primary research or clinical responsibilities. There was
some concern about long-term commitments: should there be continuing Rank 0 positions or should continuing
Rank 0 positions be eliminated, if all Rank 0 positions are contingent, then regardless of primary area of
responsibility, a recommendation limiting the number of contract renewals should apply only to Rank 0(I)
positions.
R 15: The basic principle is that Rank 0 faculty members are expected to have some involvement in research.
R13: “makes it clear that a change in contract from Rank 0(I) to Rank 0(II) is a ‘transition’, not a promotion.”
This recommendation also “eliminates an ‘extra promotion’ advantage that in the past has allowed the
possibility of 3 promotions for Rank 0 faculty members, compared to only 2 promotions for tenure-track faculty
members.:
Senate Discussion:
Tom Kozel said that titles used for faculty were important, especially in receiving grant funds. There was
discussion regarding job security, clinical faculty and their termination notice. Stephen Jenkins said that there
was some frustration about faculty going round and round on the same issues.
MOTION: Jenkins/E. Herzik. To table the recommendations until the March meeting so senators would have
time to discuss these recommendations with their constituents.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
9. Visit with Marc Johnson:
Executive Vice President and Provost reported that the university was still in a holding pattern while waiting for
the budget number. The Governor recommended evening out education’s salary with the rest of the state. The
budget number may be 10% for higher education. A 10% cut would mean about 16 million to the university.
Administration was going over the data to see what programs would be put up for curricular review. At this
point they are not sure if it would be 10% plus salary cuts. The cut would start March 1, 2010 and go through
June 30, 2010 and then for the FY 2011 which would begin July 1, 2010 until June 30, 2011. The Governor
was proposing money come off the top and the legislature was working on tax issues.
Jenkins asked about the review process regarding administrative programs and if faculty input would be used
this time. Johnson said that the code provided for senate review of academic programs, but not for
administrative programs. He also noted that all notification rights would be followed.
Johnson said that the campus would know about any program closures before they were submitted to the
Regents. Jim Sundali asked about horizontal cuts and the criteria that would be used to determine which
programs would be closed.
Johnson said that he could not speak to horizontal cuts at this time, but the criteria for vertical cuts were:
Student Full Time Equivalency (FTE), number of degrees completed, enrollments, centrality to the mission of
the university, connectedness (the program is central to many majors), scholarship and research productivity,
Page 5 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
grant activity, quality that has been revealed and uniqueness. Those are some of the considerations and most
have data sources and objectivity. This won’t mean just small departments, because they will also consider the
student/faculty ratio. Administration would be looking at programs and as they made adjustments they would
try to retain as many faculty as possible.
There was discussion that this is not a short term issue, but would be around for a couple of biennium.
Administration has been looking at ways to be less dependent on state funds, such as differential tuition and
out of state tuition.
10. New Business:
none
Meeting Adjourned: 5:15
Page 6 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 25, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #2a
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: As a result of an NSF audit, additional justification is required to clarify
transfers requested 45 days prior to the end date of a project.
Policy on Cost Transfers for Sponsored Projects
1,116
Reviewed: February 2010
A cost transfer is an accounting entry that credits the account originally charged and moves the expenditure to a new
account. Cost transfers are appropriate to correct technical errors, move charges on a memo account, ensure proper
allocation of costs among accounts, and remove unallowable costs. Cost transfers are not appropriate to spend down an
account.
There are two types of cost transfers:


Journal Vouchers – for all non-salary expenditures
Payroll Journal Vouchers (PR-45) – for all salary expenditures
Cost transfers are NOT:


Charges from a service center to an operating fund (this is a billing for service)
Charges processed through a clearing fund such as telephone services, copy services, etc.
Cost transfers that MAY be appropriate:




Correction of technical errors, such as a data entry or transposition error.
Transfer of pre-award costs from a memo account. Use of another sponsored account is strictly prohibited
and will result in all pre-award costs being moved permanently to a non-sponsored account.
Transfers between projects when the work is closely related and the cost is a proper charge to either
project.
Transfers to move unallowable charges to a non-sponsored project.
Cost transfers that are NOT appropriate:



Transfers processed solely to move deficit spending from one sponsored project to another unrelated
sponsored project.
Transfers that are processed solely to use up an unexpended balance.
Transfers of expenses that were not incurred during the project period performance, unless specifically
allowed in writing by the sponsor.
Required Documentation:
Timely transfers that are requested must include a complete and clear explanation on the Journal Voucher or PR45:



Within 90 days of the posting of the expense
Before the last 45 days of the project
Prior to effort certification
The justification must address the following:


The cause of the error; and
The charge must be allowable, allocable and provides direct benefit to the project receiving the charge.
Page 7 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
Late transfers that are requested must include a complete and clear explanation on the Journal Voucher or PR45 and a
completed Cost Transfer Explanation Form (OSPA-06):



90 days after the posting of the expense and/or
Within the last 45 days of the project and/or
After effort certification
The justification must address the following:



The cause of the error; and
The charge must be allowable, allocable and provides direct benefit to the project receiving the charge; and
An action plan to avoid similar violations in the future
Authority:
Review of the transfer and supporting justification is completed by the post award analysts in the Office of Sponsored
Projects (OSP). Additional review is conducted by the effort reporting specialist in OSP when required.
OSP is authorized to reject cost transfers on sponsored projects accounts that do not meet criteria contained in this policy
or that would be questionable under federal or other regulations and statutes or by the terms and conditions of a sponsor
award.
In the event that OSP has requested that a PI, department, or college or its representative remove specific costs from a
sponsored project due to regulatory requirements, audit reports, close out requirements, over-expenditures, or questionable
direct charged items, and the individual or department contacted fails to respond to the request within 30 days, OSP has
the authority to complete cost transfers on these projects to move the charges off of a sponsored project account to the
college, departmental or PI F&A account without further permission. Alternatively, OSP may move the charges off to
another non-sponsored account as specified by a project PI in order to provide for the timely close-out of an award and/or
to remove questionable or over-expended items charged to the sponsored project account and to be in compliance with
award terms and conditions.
Page 8 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 25, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #2b
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: Administrators who are reassigned will now return immediately to their
shadow salary and will no longer be “stepped down” over a three year period. The University will adhere to
the Code’s policy for the step down of Vice Presidents
1.
Page 9 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 25, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #2c
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: As a result of an NSF audit, language was needed address graduate student
assistant tuition allocation.
Graduate Assistant Tuition Allocation Policy
2,907
Revised: March 2010
The University of Nevada, Reno allocates graduate tuition costs based on the following guidelines:



Sponsored project account – tuition charges cannot exceed the amount proportional to the student’s level of
effort on the project for the entire semester.
State account – tuition charges cannot exceed the amount proportional to the salary paid to the student for the
entire semester from fund 1101 and 1104 accounts.
Discretionary account – (e.g. department, PI indirect cost recovery) – full or partial tuition costs are allowable
irrespective of the student’s effort and/or salary payments.
Document Processing Procedures:
The following documents must be sent to the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR):



PAFs and Grant-in-Aid Waivers (new and revised)
Cost Transfers for GRA/GTA Salary (PR45)
Cost Transfers for Tuition (JV)
The OVPR will review state or discretionary account documents; the Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP) will
review sponsored project account documents. Approved documents will route to the Graduate School, then to the
Cashier’s Office and finally to accounts payable when appropriate.
Late Start Assistantships:
Assistantships that start prior to the eighth week of the semester are eligible for full tuition support for that
semester. Tuition support for assistantships starting after the eighth week will be prorated based on the number of
weeks left in the semester.
Terminated Assistantships:
In the event the graduate student assistantship is terminated prior to the eighth week of the semester, the graduate
assistantship will be revoked and all fees will become the responsibility of the student. Assistantships terminated
between the eight and fourteenth week of the semester will be prorated based on the number of weeks completed.
Any tuition charges that are deemed to be unallowable costs on a sponsored account will become the responsibility
of the department that hired the student.
Roles and Responsibilities:
Faculty Supervisors/Principal Investigators: Ensure that student salary, tuition and insurance are charged to
sponsored and state accounts reflecting the student’s effort for the semester. Notify department/unit
administrators to process corrective documents as soon as a change in the student’s effort occurs.
Department/Unit Administrators: Assist faculty to prepare documents and manage accounts to ensure that charges
are posted to the correct account. The designated account must be budgeted for the expenses. The correct budget
lines are:



Graduate student salaries – 12
Health insurance and fringe benefit costs – 16
Tuition and fees – 44
Page 10 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
All documents must be complete, reference an account number that is budgeted for tuition, and use the correct
amounts to be charged based on a prorata distribution of the salary. Failure to provide complete and accurate
information will result in a delay of processing the documents.
Office of the Vice President for Research: Receive all documents related to graduate student salary, tuition and
health insurance. Documents involving sponsored accounts will be forwarded to OSP. OVPR reviews all other
documents and forwards to the Graduate School upon approval except payroll cost transfers which are routed to
Payroll.
Office of Sponsored Projects: Review all documents related to graduate student salary, tuition and health
insurance that involve sponsored project accounts. Upon approval OSP routes documents to the Graduate School
except payroll cost transfers which are routed to Payroll.
Graduate School: Process approved tuition grant-in-aid waivers and PAF’s to ensure the accurate posting of
tuition, insurance and salary charges. The Graduate School forwards grant-in-aid waivers to the Cashier’s Office
and PAF’s to Payroll.
Cashier’s Office: Process approved grant-in-aid waivers to credit students’ accounts.
Controller’s Office: Sign off on all tuition journal vouchers submitted to the OVPR and process approved cost
transfers.
Calculation:
To calculate the portion of tuition costs allocable to a particular account use the following procedure:
1. Number of months paid on the account ÷ 5 months = percent of months
2. Percent of months x total tuition = tuition amount allocable to account
Example:
August, September and December salary charged to Account A
October and November salary charged to Account B
Student enrolled in 6 credits on 20 hour assistantship
Account A Percent of Months: 3/5 = 60%
Account B Percent of Months: 2/5 = 40%
In the event one month salary is split between multiple projects, use a partial month to determine costs.
6 credits x $151.12 (amount covered by University for assistantship) = $906.72 total tuition costs covered for
student
Amount that can be charged to Account A: $906.72 x 60% = $544.03
Amount that can be charged to Account B: $906.72 x 40% = $362.69
Page 11 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 25, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #2d
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: As a result of an NSF audit, language was needed to address how the
University tracks committed effort.
University Cost Share Policy
1,118
Revised: March 2010
Cost share is a portion of the project costs not borne by the sponsor and constitutes a term and condition of the
agreement the University has with the sponsor. Therefore the University is required to document all committed
cost share expenditures and ensure that the obligation has been met.
Proposed cost share must be detailed on the Cost Share Worksheet (OSP-11) that is required with the Transmittal
(OSP-1). All committed cost share is tracked on the Office of Sponsored Project’s (OSP) Cost Share report. The
report is updated as cost share is reported either through the effort reporting system or by memorandums from
the Principal Investigator (PI).
Departmental or other institutional resources are redirected to the support of the cost share obligation. Once these
resources are dedicated as cost share the University incurs the following financial impacts:



The resources cannot be used for any other expenditure.
The University does not recover F&A costs for expenses that might otherwise be paid by the sponsor.
The cost share is included in the research base of the proposed F&A rate calculation. The higher the cost share;
the lower the proposed F&A rate.
Due to the documentation required to support cost share expenditures and the financial impact on the University,
it is the policy of the University that cost share is only used when it is mandated by the sponsor.
In addition to university resources, it is sometimes permissible to utilize expenditures by a third party for cost
share. Third party expenditures must be properly documented. All third party cost share must be valued based
on reasonableness given the type of third party service provided.
Cost Share Components:
1. Effort and the corresponding salary paid by the University to university employees. This includes the following:
a. Mandatory Committed Cost Sharing is required by the sponsor as a condition of obtaining an award. It must
be included in the contract or grant proposal to receive consideration from the sponsor.
b. Salary-Cap Cost Sharing results when an individual’s institutional base salary exceeds a sponsor’s salary cap.
The prorated excess is a form of mandatory cost sharing that must be funded by an appropriate and allowable
source of non-sponsored funds.
c. Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing represents quantified contributions reflected in the proposal narrative,
budget, and/or budget justification. These are binding commitments and must be accounted for in any
resulting award in accordance with this policy.
d. Voluntary Uncommitted Cost Sharing represents effort that may benefit a project but was not committed in
the proposal or award.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Applicable fringe benefit costs based on salary expenditures paid by the University.
Travel, equipment, and material costs paid by the University
Unrecovered F&A on university and sponsor expenditures, if allowed by sponsor.
Salary (non university employees), travel, equipment, and material costs paid
Page 12 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
Eligible expenditures must meet all of the following criteria:





Verifiable from the recipient’s records.
Necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient completion of the project’s scope of work.
Allowable under the applicable cost principles.
Documented in the approved budget when required by the sponsor.
Expended within the time frame of the project.
Failure to meet the cost share obligation can result in a disallowance of costs paid by the sponsor. The sponsor can
reduce their support and/or require reimbursement if the University fails to provide all promised cost share.
The method for meeting the cost share obligation can vary by project. PIs must maintain oversight of the cost
share obligation.
Ineligible Expenditures:






Costs incurred outside the start and end date of the project.
Costs already used to match another project or other institutional purpose.
Restricted or unallowed expenses under the OMB Circulars such as entertainment or food costs.
Costs that did not benefit the project.
Administrative and clerical salaries, office supplies, memberships, subscriptions, etc., unless these costs have
been fully justified and approved by the sponsor in advance.
Existing space, facilities, equipment and utilities.
Cost Share Procedures:






During the proposal stage, if cost share is included in the proposal a Cost Share Worksheet (OSP-11) must be
submitted with the Transmittal (OSP-1).
If the project is awarded and the cost share accepted by the sponsor, the project account number is added to the
OSP’s Cost Share report.
The report is updated as cost share is reported to the OSP:
o Mandatory, Salary Cap and Voluntary Committed effort must be reported in the Effort Reporting System.
o All other non-salary expenditures are reported via a cover sheet and supporting balance and activity report
from CAIS that shows the expenditure.
All other non-salary expenditures shall be reported quarterly. Cost shared salary shall be reported in the
appropriate effort reporting term.
The OSP post award analyst responsible for financial reporting to the sponsor will include all reported cost share
in invoices and/or statements as required by the sponsor.
It is the responsibility of the PI to monitor cost share expenditures and the Cost Share report statement issued
monthly.
Page 13 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 25, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #2e
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: A new policy was created as a result of an NSF audit finding that requires
mandatory training.
Policy on Training for Research Compliance
6,513
Revised: March 2010
It is the policy of the University of Nevada, Reno that all employees working on externally funded
research receive training in the subject areas applicable to their roles and responsibilities.
The subject areas include but are not limited to:




Responsible Conduct of Research
Effort Reporting/Grants Management
Conflict of Interest
Protocol Development and Management
The Office of Sponsored Projects is responsible for coordinating the training sessions and maintaining
the database of participants for all areas except Protocol Development and Management. The Offices of
Human Research Protection and Environmental Health & Safety will maintain their own databases and
coordinate training sessions for Protocol Development and Management training.
New employees must have a verifiable record in the database showing that they have received training on
all appropriate topics by the six month anniversary of their hire date. Current employees must have a
verifiable record in the database showing that they have received training on all appropriate topics by
December 31, 2010.
It is the responsibility of the college deans must ensure that their respective college personnel receive the
training. Personnel who have failed to receive the training by the deadlines as stated above may be
subject to contract review and termination.
Page 14 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 25, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #3
Faculty Senate Procedural Guidelines for the University Grievance Process January 21, 2010
(Revised in accordance with 10/08 UNR Bylaws revisions)
The purpose of these guidelines is to serve as a source of information for the university grievance
process. These guidelines are subject to approval by the Faculty Senate as a policy statement. Changes or
additions to the guidelines can be made by submission to the Faculty Senate.
The University Grievance Committee was established in 1977 at UNR by the president on the advice of
the Faculty Senate. The purpose of the university grievance process is to provide a means by which professional
personnel with a grievance against some other member of the UNR professional staff can receive a hearing.
Grievance procedures and the grievance process are discussed in sections 3.2.1 – 3.2.4 of the UNR Bylaws. The
university grievance committees and their functions are described in section 3.2.5 of the UNR Bylaws.
Duties of University Grievance Pool Members
Members from the University Grievance Pool will have no duties until chosen to serve on a university
grievance committee, formed to hear a grievance. A member serving on a grievance committee should treat the
matter as an important professional obligation, give it thoughtful consideration, and respect the confidentiality
of participants. A member chosen to serve on a committee should not request to be relieved of this obligation,
from the Provost, unless there is a serious conflict of scheduling preventing the member from attending the
hearing, a conflict of interest due to a personal or professional relationship with either the petitioner or
respondent, or deeply held convictions about the issue that will prevent the member from reaching an impartial,
objective decision. Any member of the university grievance pool determined by the faculty senate chair to have
been involved in the events leading to the grievance shall be removed from consideration for membership on
the grievance committee.
The grievance process
The faculty senate chair has the responsibility of receiving notices of grievances and initiating the
grievance process as it is described in section 3.2 of UNR Bylaws.
If an incomplete notice of grievance is received, the petitioner will be asked to submit a revision or
addendum before the notice of grievance is processed. When a petitioner presents a complete and properly filed
notice of grievance, as defined in UNR Bylaw 3.2.4 c, the faculty senate chair will notify the petitioner and the
respondent, in writing, that the grievance has been filed and will include reference to the date of filing.
Information will also be provided about the grievance process and correspondence will follow, including the
selection of committee members after chosen by lot.
The senate office will reserve a room for the hearing and provide a tape recorder with sufficient tapes
capacity to record the hearing. The faculty senate chair will notify the petitioner, respondent, and committee
members in writing of the date and location of the hearing. The notice will include an agenda for the hearing,
and a call for written evidence, names of witnesses, and the names of colleagues/spokespersons, if applicable.
Page 15 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
The grievance hearing rules and procedures are as follows:
1.A staff member of the faculty senate office will be present to operate the recorder.
1. 2.The committee chair introduces the principals and explains the purpose of the hearing, reviewing the
rules and procedures, and making sure that everyone understands exactly what is being grieved and
precisely what remedy is being sought.
2. 3.The committee chair makes all rulings on the matter relating to the conduct of the hearing, including
matter regarding admission of evidence.
3. 4.The committee chair maintains an orderly hearing, and may exclude anyone who refuses to be orderly.
4. 5.Legal rules of evidence or civil court procedures shall not apply at the hearing, but the chair will make
every effort to see that only relevant and reliable evidence is presented. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious
evidence will be excluded.
5. 6.Committee members have the right to question anyone who testifies, or to ask questions about written
evidence.
6. 7.Ordinarily, the hearing will be closed and witnesses will be present only to testify, but upon petition to
the chair and with agreement of both parties the hearing may be opened.
7. 8.The petitioner and respondent will each have the opportunity to make a brief opening statement. Then
the petitioner will present his or her own evidence, followed by presentation of evidence by the
respondent. Each has the right to questions or rebut witnesses, and make a brief closing statement. The
parties will make every effort to be brief and to the point, and will attempt to limit their presentations to
two hours each.
The petitioner and respondent may be assisted at all stages by a UNR employee, the
spokesperson/colleague, except as described in UNR Bylaws section 3.2.5 g.
8. 9.The committee through its committee chair may request the petitioner and respondent to supply
additional information.
9. 10.The committee makes its deliberations in an unrecorded, closed session and reaches a decision by
simple majority vote.
10. 11.The committee shall make a decision and submit its report and recommendations to the faculty senate
chair within ten college working days of the hearing. The report should include a summary of the
hearing and the committee’s conclusions as to the facts.
11. 12.The faculty senate chair will submit the report and recommendations along with a copy of the notice
of grievance to the president within ten college working days of receipt for a final decision. The faculty
senate chair will send copies of the report and recommendations to the petitioner and respondent.
12. 13.The president or the president’s designee may review any documents within the grievance file, for
use in making his decision, by making such request to the Faculty Senate Chair. The president will
submit the final decision to the faculty senate chair within ten college working days of receipt of the
report and recommendations. The president will send copies of the final decision to the petitioner and
respondent.
13. 14.The faculty senate chair will notify the grievances committee members of the president’s decision,
and disband the committee.
The committee chair will collect and submit to the faculty senate chair all copies of evidential materials
from the committee members, and the audio recording of the hearing within five college working days of the
hearing. The faculty senate chair will shred the copies of the evidential materials. The original grievance file,
including the committee’s report and recommendations and the president’s final decision, and the audio
recordings will be place in the university archives for a period of three years. Only the petitioner, respondent,
president and faculty senate chair, or their designees may review the files, upon request to and supervision by
the archivist. Request to review audio recordings must be submitted directly to the Faculty Senate office.
Recordings may be reviewed in the senate office, by appointment, under the supervision of the faculty senate
chair or designee.
Page 16 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
Faculty Senate - Grievance Instructions
University of Nevada, Reno
January 21, 2010
Page 17 of 21
How to File a Grievance
It is recommended that before you file a notice of grievance, you schedule an appointment to meet
with the Faculty Senate Manager and/or Faculty Senate Chair, who can discuss alternatives, process,
procedures, eligibility, and requirements.
There are no forms to complete to file a notice of grievance. To file, send a memo addressed to the
the University Grievance Committee Chair, who is also the presiding Faculty Senate Chair. The
following information must be included in the notice.
1.
A description of the decision or action being grieved.
2.
The regulation, procedure, or citation in the NSHE Code, UNR Bylaws, unit bylaws, and/or
department bylaws which have been violated.
3.
Note that in grieving any decision that could be reversed or revised (especially personnel
decisions), you must exhaust the reconsideration process before you can be eligible to file a
grievance. Include a brief chronology of the reconsideration process.
4.
The type of grievance: having to do with salary (including merit, promotion, tenure,
reappointment or disciplinary action).
5.
The name(s) of the respondent(s). That is, the person(s) responsible for the decision or action
being grieved. If more than one person is being named, specify one of the respondents as the the
respondents will determine a "primary respondent." The primary respondent is responsible for
communicating with the senate office during the process leading up to the grievance hearing. The
term "primary respondent" does not indicate, in any way, that the person is primarily responsible for
the decision or action.
6.
The remedy(ies) you are seeking.
RECOMMENDATION: Be very brief. Most notices of grievances can be described on 1-2 pages. No
attachments are necessary at the time of notice. You will be asked to submit evidential materials at
a later date.
Page 17 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
Summary of the Grievance Process
On receipt of a notice of grievance, the Ffaculty Ssenate office personnel (referred to as the
case manager in this document) will review it with the faculty senate chair. If there is any question
about the petitioner's (the person filing the grievance) eligibility to file the grievance, the case
manager will immediately contact the petitioner. If the petitioner is eligible to file a grievance, but
the notice is incomplete, or if it requires clarification, the petitioner will be notified that an addendum
or revised notice is required.
I.
When the notice of grievance is complete and properly filed, the case manager will notify the
petitioner and respondent of same. The respondent will receive a copy of the notice.
II
The case manager will initiate the selection of grievance committee members.
A.
After the committee members have been selected, the case manager will call a
meeting, at which the members will receive their charge and the notice of grievance. The petitioner
and respondent do not attend this meeting.
B.
The case manager will contact the petitioner and respondent regarding possible dates
and times to hold the grievance hearing. Hearings are scheduled for a period of four contiguous
hours.
C.
The date, time, and location of the hearing will be confirmed in writing by the
committee chair case manager. The chair’s case manager's confirmation will also notify the
petitioner and respondent of the deadline for submitting written evidence, names of witnesses, and
names of colleagues, who will act as spokespersons. Upon review of the documents submitted, the
committee may request additional information, and the petitioner and respondent may submit
additional materials in response to the other party's submission.
D.
The hearing is held. An agenda will be provided in advance of the hearing.
E.
The committee deliberates and submits its report and recommendations to the faculty
senate office.
F.
The report and recommendations are reviewed by the case manager. If the
recommendations do not address the remedies sought, the committee will be asked to revise them,
in accordance with its conclusions about the case.
G.
The final report and recommendations are forwarded to the president for his/her
decision, with copies to the petitioner and respondent. (If the president is the respondent, the report
and recommendations are forwarded to the chancellor.)
H.
The president or the president’s designee may review any documents within the
grievance file, for use in making his decision, by making such request to the Ffaculty Ssenate Cchair.
The president will notify the grievance committee chair, in writing, of his/her decision, with copies to
the petitioner and respondent. (If the president is the respondent, the decision will be submitted by
the chancellor.)
*
The grievance process is subject to timelines that work around "non-work" days, e.g. holidays,
the winter recess, spring break, and summer recess. This might affect the deadlines for, but not
Page 18 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
limited to, filing a notice of grievance, selecting committee members, submitting evidential materials,
and holding the hearing.
How to Prepare for the Grievance Hearing
The purpose of holding a grievance hearing is to provide the grievance committees with
information that is not already included in written materials, so that it can determine whether or not
the petitioner's case is valid and to what extent. Whether the committee finds in favor of the
petitioner or the respondent, it will make recommendations to the president through the University
Grievance Committee faculty senate chair, in response to the petitioner's requested remedies.
Preparing documents and oral presentations is time consuming. Be aware of any submission
deadlines and the hearing schedule. Except in VERY extraordinary cases, there are no exceptions to
the deadlines. The best strategy is to be brief and to the point. More is not always better, and most
often is counter productive.
If you have any questions about the grievance process or the hearing, contact the
case manager at 784-4025. The Unviersity Grievance Committee Ccase Mmanager is
advocate to no party, and is available to assist both petitioners and respondents.
The following guidelines are intended to help you prepare for the hearing.
Focus on the reasons for the grievance, as indicated in the notice of grievance. The
committee will not consider information that is not directly related to the issue(s), nor will it entertain
discussion about non-related matters at the hearing.
Provide only the most applicable and/or persuasive of documents in your evidential materials.
Documents should be organized in ascending chronological order, so that committee members are
able to follow the events leading up to the filing of the grievance. If the applicability of a document,
or group of documents, might not be obvious to the readers, include a brief explanation -maybe a
paragraph. The explanation should simply state what the information is intended to demonstrate.
Do not use paper clips. Use only staples. We don't want to jeopardize the integrity of multiplepage documents. Papers sometimes get stuck in the wrong place when paper clips are used. Do
not use binders. Again, we want to maintain the integrity of documents, so we don't want to punch
any holes that might cut off text.
Direct all materials and correspondence (written and verbal) through the faculty senate
office. The senate office staff will make and distribute copies of all written materials and
correspondence to the other party and committee members. This requirement establishes a certain
level of integrity of the copies, and precludes the event of committee members receiving biasing
information.
Limit the number of your witnesses to 2-3. Select witnesses who will best support your case.
When you ask someone to witness for you, let them know that they will have to be available in a
waiting area the duration of the hearing (four hours). Let them know your expectations. That is, do
you want them to prepare an oral statement of a few minutes, or do you want them to be prepared
to answer a sequence of questions that you plan to ask. In any event, let them know that they may
have to answer questions from other hearing participants during the hearing. Make sure that your
Page 19 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
witnesses are available when you are. We will not reschedule a hearing because a witness cannot
attend.
If you ask someone to accompany you as a colleague, or even a spokesperson, remember
that the person you ask must not be a practicing attorney, professionally trained (e.g., non-practicing
attorneys or mediators), or routinely involved in assisting faculty through other dispute processes. Let
your colleague know to what extent you want him/her to participate during the hearing. Make sure
that your colleague is available when you are. We will not reschedule a hearing because a
colleague cannot attend.
Hearings proceed on a very tight schedule, in accordance with grievance guidelines. They
are scheduled for a maximum of four contiguous hours. The agenda will include the following
schedule.
1.
An opening statement and introductions by the chair (approximately 5-10 minutes):
The chair's opening statement will establish the expectations for conducting an orderly hearing. The
chair has the authority, if necessary, to call a break at any time, to expel witnesses or colleagues from
the proceedings, and to render decisions regarding the applicability of information that is being
introduced during the hearing.
2.
A 10-minute opening statement by the petitioner, then a 10-minute opening statement
by the respondent: The petitioner and respondent should use this time to summarize their position.
3.
A 1.5-hour presentation of the petitioner's case: That is, the petitioner should use this
time to call witnesses and provide clarification of written evidence. The committee should use this
time to ask questions of the petitioner, specifically to request clarification or additional information.
Other participants may also ask questions.
4.
A 5-minute break
5.
A 1.5-hour presentation of the respondent's case: That is, the respondent should use this
time to call witnesses and provide clarification of written evidence. The committee should use this
time to ask questions of the respondent, specifically to request clarification or additional information.
Other participants may also ask questions.
6.
A 10-minute closing statement by the petitioner, and then a 10-minute closing
statement by the respondent: The petitioner and respondent should use this time to summarize the
reasons they think they have proven their case.
NOTICE: If there are multiple petitioners or respondents, all the petitioners and respondents must
participate in the hearing. The primary petitioner and respondent are responsible for working with
the other petitioners and respondents to organize their evidential materials, correspondence,
witnesses, and colleagues. Only one colleague each is allowed per group of petitioners and
respondents.
NOTICE Regarding Written Evidential Materials: The senate office will make up to 3,000 copies per
party, or 6 copies of 500 pages. Additional copies will be made at a cost of 5 cents per copy,
payable in advance.
Page 20 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10
Page 21 of 21
Consent Agenda
3-25-10