NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM 11 Case Number: A-04110066 11 Page 1 of 1 We received an allegation that the subject, a co-PI' on an NSF proposal^ requested 1.OO months of summer salary for each of 3 consecutive years which he should not have done because he was employed on a 12-month contract by a state ~ u s e u m ~ The . subject's Biosketch in the NSF proposal listed two employers - the Museum and the institution fiom which the proposal was received, a College. However, there was no explanation in the proposal concerning the request for the summer salary related to these two separate employment situations. Because we could I not determine the subject's employment status with either of these employers was, we contacted him. The subject informed us that he was a 12-month calendar employee at the Museum. Further, he explained that he worked part time at the College, an arrangement made through the state. The NSF policy states that for PIS that receive compensation based on a 12-month calendar year, "salary is defined in calendar months. For such persons, the concept of summer salary is normally inappropriate under an NSF grant.'d The PI did nothing wrong in requesting the summer salary. When NSF proposals, such as this one, are considered for funding, program officers typically evaluate the appropriateness of requests for summer salary prior to recommending the proposals for fimding. 'Dr. the subject, is - I as well as a facity member at ' Y NSF proposal ,entitled 'q " was submitted by 4 PI, and the subject, both ai the Department of L 3 NSF Manual #10 Chapter VI,E(l)(b)(3). 11' NSF OIG Form 2 (11/02)
Published by the National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General on 2004-11-19.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)