jurisdiction: US

text: b" Audit of Grants Management and\nExpenditures on Selected NSF Awards\n at the University of South Dakota\n Vermillion, South Dakota\n\n\n\n\n National Science Foundation\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n March 9, 2005\n OIG 05-1-004\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY i\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n Background 1\n\n Objective, Scope, and Methodology 1\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n 1. USD Needs to Improve the Annual Reporting Process and\n Management of Subawards and Subcontracts 3\n\n 2. Unallowable Costs Claimed 13\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\n Questioned Costs Schedule 20\n\n Auditee Response 21\n\n ACRONYMS\n\n\nCouncil grant South Dakota Science and Technology Council\nDGA NSF Division of Grants and Agreements\nDSU Dakota State University\nEPSCoR Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research\nF&A Facilities and Administrative\nHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\nNSF U. S. National Science Foundation\nPFI grant Statewide Partnership to Support Technology Innovation and\n Entrepreneurship in South Dakota\nRite Link grant Development and Evaluation of a Model Information Technology\n Training and Education Program for Rural Communities\nOMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget\nSOW Statement of Work\nUSD University of South Dakota\nVP Vice President\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited selected National Science Foundation\n(NSF) grants awarded to the University of South Dakota (USD). The objectives of the\naudit were to evaluate (1) USD's overall administration of NSF grant funds in accordance\nwith award terms and conditions and (2) the allocability, allowability, and reasonableness\nof cost sharing and costs charged to three NSF grants.\n\nUSD\xe2\x80\x99s grants program has grown significantly over the last five years, doubling from just\nover $12 million in FY 1998 to over $25 million in FY 2003. Our audit found that USD\nadequately accounts for the direct costs charged to NSF grants in most respects.\nHowever, USD did not have a full time research director overseeing the Office of\nResearch and resources devoted to grants administration did not sufficiently keep pace\nwith the research growth. Specifically, the VP of the Office of Research and his\nAssociate Dean both had direct research grant duties in addition to their overall grant\nadministration duties. In addition, USD did not have an adequate understanding of its\nindirect cost rate structure and did not have a formalized system in place to determine\nwhich costs are direct or indirect. As a result, USD filed late and sometimes inaccurate\nannual reports, inadequately managed some subawards and subcontracts, and charged\nunallowable costs and cost sharing to NSF awards. Specifically, we questioned costs of\n$142,593 and cited an additional $53,875 as cost sharing at risk.\n\nIn addition to recovering the questioned costs and addressing the cost sharing at risk, our\nrecommendations include that USD assign responsibility of overseeing grant\nadministration to an individual that is independent of the research, who will assess\ncurrent staffing levels to ensure these levels are adequate to administer a growing\nresearch program. USD also needs to develop policies and procedures that ensure grant\nproblems are made known to sponsoring Federal agencies, annual reports are accurate\nand submitted timely, subawards and subcontracts are managed in accordance with\nFederal guidelines, only allowable costs are charged to NSF awards, and a system is put\nin place to determine which costs are charged directly or indirectly.\n\nDuring the audit, USD took steps to correct some of these concerns. Also, based on this\naudit NSF declined to exercise option years four and five on one of the grants, allowing\nfor $620,020 of NSF funds to be redirected to other programs in the Directorate for\nComputer and Information Science and Engineering.\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0cSummary of Auditee's Response\n\nUSD generally agreed with the findings relating to late annual reporting and management\nof subawards. In addition, USD revised its policy to no longer claim cost sharing for\npersonnel that worked in the Office of Research. However, USD disagreed that it\nsubmitted an inaccurate annual report, did not notify NSF of problems on a grant, and\ndisputed most of the questioned costs and cost sharing. We summarized USD\xe2\x80\x99s response\nafter each applicable recommendation and included the response in its entirety in\nAppendix B.\n\nSummary of Auditors' Comments\n\nWe agree with and commend the actions USD has or plans to take addressing late annual\nreporting and management of subawards. However, we reaffirm our recommendations\nregarding the accuracy of annual reporting, notification of grant problems with NSF, and\nthe questioned costs and cost sharing. The information provided by USD did not\ndemonstrate that USD accurately reported results for the grant in the annual report,\nadequately notified NSF of grant difficulties, or understood its indirect cost rate structure,\nwhich resulted in the questioned costs and cost sharing. Following our summary of\nUSD\xe2\x80\x99s responses, we have provided detailed comments explaining our concerns.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cBACKGROUND\n\nFounded in 1862, the University of South Dakota (USD) is located in Vermillion with\nadditional Medical School campuses in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. USD is part of the State\nof South Dakota reporting entity for purposes of the Single Audit Act of 1996. As the\nUniversity\xe2\x80\x99s largest Federal sponsor, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)\nis the cognizant Federal agency. HHS has currently set USD's predetermined indirect rate for\nsponsored research at 40.5 percent, effective to June 30, 2006.\n\nUSD has had notable success in obtaining Federal grants as evidenced by its 100 percent\nincrease in Federal funds expended in the last 5 years, from just over $12 million in FY 1998 to\nover $25 million in FY 2003.1 Only HHS and the Department of Education provide more\nFederal funds to USD than NSF. As of June 30, 2003, USD had 12 active NSF grants totaling\nover $5.7 million.\n\nCoordination and overall administration of research efforts at USD are assigned to the Office of\nResearch, which is comprised of three professionals and two administrative staff people. A Vice\nPresident (VP), who is also the Dean of Graduate Education, heads the office,2 as well as\nworking directly on some research grants. Two associate deans assist the VP. One associate\ndean is devoted solely to the USD Medical School in Sioux Falls and the other associate dean\nworks at the USD main campus dividing his time between direct work on grants and Associate\nDean duties. A Sponsored Programs Coordinator and a secretary complete the Office of\nResearch staff. Two additional people dedicated within the University's accounting office\naccount for grant funds.\n\nOBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nThe audit objectives were to evaluate (1) USD's administration of NSF grant funds in\naccordance with award terms and conditions and (2) the allocability, allowability, and\nreasonableness of cost sharing and costs charged to three NSF awards. The following chart\ncontains the relevant information on these awards.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Federal funds include direct Federal funds, Federal pass-though funds, and Federal financial aid.\n2\n The VP, who heads the Office of Research, dedicates 45 percent of his time to the duties of this position, 50\npercent as the Dean of Graduate Education, and 5 percent as the USD EPSCoR representative. He has held these\npositions since 1998.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c NSF Award Grant Title Grant Period Award\n Amount\nEPS-98719553 South Dakota Science and\n 7/1/1998 - 6/30/2003 $297,168\n Technology Council (Council grant)\nEHR-0125385 Statewide Partnership to Support $598,247\n Technology Innovation and (plus cost\n 1/1/2002 - 12/31/2004\n Entrepreneurship in South Dakota sharing of\n (PFI grant) $62,547)\nEIA-02960914 Development and Evaluation of a\n Model Information Technology\n 9/1/2000 - 8/31/2003 $1,079,852\n Training and Education Program for\n Rural Communities (Rite Link grant)\n\nIn evaluating the adequacy of USD\xe2\x80\x99s administration of NSF grants, we reviewed applicable\nFederal and NSF policy and procedures, NSF award jackets, and USD accounting data. We also\ninterviewed appropriate HHS, USD, and NSF officials. We reviewed the expenditures reflected\nin USD's accounting records and financial statements and performed detailed testing of those\ncosts incurred specifically on the three NSF grants noted and extended our review of financial\ntransactions to other NSF funded projects as deemed necessary.5 We made two site visits6 to\nUSD\xe2\x80\x99s main campus in Vermillion, South Dakota, and interviewed key personnel to gain an\nunderstanding of USD\xe2\x80\x99s management controls.\n\nIn addition to audit work performed at USD, we conducted audit work at Dakota State University\n(DSU) because one of the audited grants, the Rite Link grant, was originally awarded to DSU\nunder award EIA-0086076. NSF and DSU agreed to transfer the grant, effective September\n2001, when the PI moved to USD in July of that year. We interviewed DSU personnel,\nincluding the Co-PI who worked on a major portion of the Rite Link grant. We will be issuing a\nseparate report specifically detailing the result of our audit work at DSU.\n\nWe conducted our audit in accordance with the Comptroller General\xe2\x80\x99s Government Audit\nStandards and included such tests of accounting records and other auditing procedures, as we\nconsidered necessary, to fully address the audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n3\n The original period of performance for this award was from 7/1/1998 to 6/30/2000. A no-cost extension was\ngranted on 5/15/01, which extended the award two additional years: 6/30/2001 to 6/30/2003.\n4\n This grant was originally awarded to Dakota State University under grant EIA-0086076 for $1,049,852, with\noptions for increasing the award by $320,014 in FY 2003 and by $300,006 in FY 2004. The award was transferred\nto USD on September 1, 2001 in conjunction with the transfer of the PI from DSU to USD under new grant number\nEIA-0296091. An amendment was signed on 6/13/2002 increasing the award by $30,000. The PI officially\ntransferred to USD on July 1, 2001.\n5\n USD had 9 other active NSF awards as follows: EPS-0082978, DBI-0097536, DUE-0123002, DGE-0124950,\nEPS-0126795, CHE-0138951, SES-0139431, EAR-0208247, and DBI-0216473.\n6\n Our sites visits to USD were during Feb/Mar 2003 and Sep/Oct 2003.\n\n 2\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n1. USD Needs to Improve its Annual Reporting Process and Management of Subawards\n and Subcontracts\n\nNSF and Federal grant requirements require grantees to keep their sponsoring agencies informed\nabout the status of their research projects. In particular, grantees need to submit periodic\nprogress reports and to notify the Federal awarding agency in the case of problems, delays, or\nadverse conditions, which significantly affect its ability to fulfill the grant objectives.\nAdditionally, a grantee must monitor work performed and billings submitted by subawardees and\nsubcontractors.\n\nHowever, our audit found:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Instances of inaccurate, untimely, and missing annual reports for nine of USD\xe2\x80\x99s 12 active\n awards from NSF; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 On two NSF grants, subaward agreements and subcontracts were not signed, until after\n work had begun and contained unclear statements of work. Also, the subawardees and\n subcontractors did not submit 10 of the 18 required progress reports.\n\nThese deficiencies occurred because the VP and the Associate Dean in the Office of Research\nwere overextended and could not adequately oversee their grants or the USD program overall.\nAs a result without timely and accurate information from USD, NSF was not aware and therefore\nnot able to timely address the significant difficulties USD was experiencing on the Rite Link\ngrant. Partly based on information provided by our office, NSF declined to fund option years\nfour and five of that grant, amounting to about $620,000. Also, without active oversight,\nsubawardees and subcontractors may not have met the grant objectives, may have overcharged\nfor costs incurred, or delayed project completion.\n\nInaccurate and Untimely Annual Reports\n\nThe NSF Grant General Conditions specify an awardee\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities and requirements\nrelated to annual reporting. Specifically, awardees are required to file annual reports informing\nNSF of progress in meeting award research goals. In addition, OMB Circular A-110, Uniform\nAdministrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher\nEducation, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations, requires a grantee to notify the\nFederal awarding agency in the case of problems, delays, or adverse conditions, which materially\nimpair the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s ability to meet the objectives of the award.\n\nHowever, USD often submitted untimely annual reports. Additionally, for one grant, USD did\nnot notify the NSF program officer of problems that significantly decreased the likelihood of\nsuccessful completion of the award and submitted an inaccurate annual report. Each of these\nissues is discussed below.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Late Submission of Annual Reports\n\n NSF Grant General Conditions, 15c Annual Project Reporting Requirements \xe2\x80\x93 \xe2\x80\x9cannual\n project reports shall be submitted at least three months prior to the end of the current budget\n period.\xe2\x80\x9d NSF relies on annual reports to stay informed of grantee progress in meeting award\n goals and to quickly address problems and issues that may arise. Accordingly, it is important\n that the reports be timely and fully disclose the status of the project.\n\n However, USD did not timely submit 13 of 18 annual reports for 9 of 12 active awards. The\n numbers of months the reports were overdue ranged from 1 to 47 months. Another 2 annual\n reports were not submitted at all. We observed that grants fully funded up front were late in\n reporting while those with incremental funding reported timely. The table below shows the\n active awards as of June 2003 and the dates that the related annual reports were filed:7\n\n Annual Progress Reports\n Award Award Expiration Report Date Report\n NSF Award Start Date Date Due Date Submitted Months Late\n\n Council Grant Jul-98 Jun-03 Apr-99 03/05/2003 47\n SES-9876527 Apr-99 Mar-03 Jan-02 03/19/2002 3\n Jan-01 04/25/2001 4\n Jan-00 04/21/2000 4\n EPS-0082978 Dec-00 Nov-03 Sep-02 05/06/2003 8\n Sep-01 07/02/2002 10\n DBI-0097536 May-01 Apr-04 Feb-00 02/14/2003 On-time\n Feb-01 01/31/2003 On-time\n Feb-02 02/01/2002 On-time\n DUE-0123002 Jan-02 Dec-05 Oct-02 09/26/2003 12\n PFI Grant Jan-02 Dec-04 Oct-02 01/14/2003 3\n EPS-0126795 Nov-01 Oct-03 Aug-02 07/30/2002 On-time\n CHE-0138951 Apr-02 Mar-04 Jan-03 12/31/2002 On-time\n No report filed as of\n SES-0139431 Mar-02 Feb-05 Dec-02 Dec 2003 12\n EAR-0208247 Aug-02 Jul-04 May-03 06/08/2003 1\n No report filed as of\n DBI-0216473 Jun-02 May-05 Mar-03 Dec 2003 9\n Rite Link Grant Sep-01 Aug-03 Jun-03 07/15/2003 1\n Jun-02 09/04/2002 3\n 18 Reports submitted,\n Totals 13 late reports\n\n\n\n\n7\n USD had not sent NSF two annual reports as of June 2003 and we confirmed that the reports had not been sent as\nof December 2003.\n\n 4\n\x0c Inaccurate Annual Reporting on the Rite Link Grant\n\n Because of concerns communicated to us by NSF program personnel, we reviewed the Rite\n Link grant annual report for the period September 2001 to September 2002 for accuracy.\n Our review found that USD overstated the level of effort staff contributed to the project and\n the extent of technical progress and accomplishments that had been achieved. The report\n also understated the difficulties the project faced in meeting its intended objectives.\n Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The annual report identified 34 individuals as each having contributed more than 160\n hours on the grant during the year. However, we found that seven of them did no work\n on the grant and an additional seven worked far fewer than the 160 hours reported by\n USD. Also, four people who worked on the grant during the reporting period were not\n noted on the annual report.8 The PI stated DSU personnel provided the labor effort\n information but the PI never checked on its accuracy.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The report stated, \xe2\x80\x9cThe project personnel have plans to expand outreach to North\n Dakota, Nebraska, Arizona, and other rural states in year 3.\xe2\x80\x9d Although the PI told us\n that the project was discussed in a general sense during some meetings with people from\n other states, the Co-PI and the Director of the Business Education Institute at DSU\n responsible for developing and conducting the training said there was never a realistic\n plan to \xe2\x80\x9coutreach\xe2\x80\x9d the training program to other states. After all, they reasoned, the need\n for distance Information Technology (IT) workers had significantly decreased. In\n addition, a critical part of the training was the use of an interactive video network that\n had been set-up throughout South Dakota but was not available to other states.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The report claimed, \xe2\x80\x9cThe primary contribution of the project to date has been its impact\n on rural economic development.\xe2\x80\x9d However, based on information from the Co-PI, the\n PI, and other key people involved in the project, no trainees obtained distance IT\n positions and the class of second year trainees was less than half the size of the first year\n group.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 USD also reported that \xe2\x80\x9cOne company XXXXXXXXXX\xe2\x80\xa6has not been able to employ as\n many participants as originally anticipated\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cTwo of the original business partners\n are currently not hiring and the third is hiring very few.\xe2\x80\x9d These statements incorrectly\n give the perception that at least some of the trainees were getting jobs, when in fact, only\n one trainee was hired by any of the business partners and the position for this individual\n was not a distance IT position for which he had been trained.\n\n The PI acknowledged that he did not adequately verify the facts he included in the annual\n report to NSF. Further, he did not have the Co-PI review the annual report, although the Co-\n PI oversaw the IT training subaward, which represented $400,000 or 50 percent of the\n $790,000 award total.\n8\n This finding is an issue of misstating the effort expended on the grant as reported in the annual report and does not\ninvolve labor costs claimed as expenses for the NSF award.\n\n 5\n\x0c Inadequate Notification of Problems on the Rite Link Grant\n\n The listed goal of the Rite Link Grant was to \xe2\x80\x9cenable residents in remote rural communities\n to participate in the new information economy.\xe2\x80\x9d It was believed there was a significant\n shortage of IT workers, therefore, the award was primarily to provide IT training to allow\n individuals located in rural areas to help address this perceived shortage.\n\n However, shortly after the award was made, the IT job market radically changed, as many IT\n companies failed and no longer needed workers. Although a training module was developed\n and over 100 people were trained, not a single trainee received a distance IT job9 offer,\n although the PI told us that one trainee did eventually obtain an IT related position. Also, a\n key factor in USD's grant proposal was that the PI had established three business partners to\n assist in developing the training and, presumably, hire some of the trainees. However, we\n found very little business partner involvement and, except for the one person mentioned\n above, none of the business partners hired any of the NSF funded trainees.\n\n Annual Reporting Important Part of Grants Management\n\n NSF relies on annual reports to stay aware of grant progress as well as any grant problems.\n When annual reports are late and/or inaccurate, NSF\xe2\x80\x99s ability to make timely and effective\n program and funding decisions is impeded. For example, the initial NSF program officer on\n the Rite Link grant told us that if the PI had properly informed NSF of the difficulties on this\n grant, the project objectives or scope may have been changed to allow for better use of the\n funds or the funds could have been redirected to a more viable project. As it was, NSF\n decided, partly as a result of information sharing between the OIG and responsible NSF\n program office, to decline funding of the award's remaining two option years, allowing NSF\n to redirect the remaining $620,02010 of unspent funds to other NSF projects.\n\n The responsible NSF program officers were not aware of the lack of business partner\n involvement or trainee hiring until we brought it to their attention. The PI admitted\n disappointment with the outcome of the Rite Link project and that he should have kept NSF\n better informed of the difficulties, but he, as well as others involved in the project, hoped that\n the IT downturn was temporary and related positions would return, allowing the grant to be\n successful.\n\n\n\n\n9\n Distance IT jobs are positions with non-local IT firms in which the employee stays in South Dakota and works\nfrom their home computer or from a nearby center.\n10\n The PI was officially notified of NSF\xe2\x80\x99s decision not to fund the last two years of the grant on May 16, 2003.\n\n 6\n\x0cSubawards and Subcontracts not Adequately Managed\n\nFederal grant regulations require primary awardees to oversee and monitor award funds passed\nto subrecipients and subcontractors.11 Specifically, OMB Circular A-110, states, \xe2\x80\x9cRecipients are\nresponsible for managing and monitoring each \xe2\x80\xa6 subaward supported by the award,\xe2\x80\x9d and OMB\nCircular A-133 provides specific guidance to award recipients for monitoring their subrecipients.\nOMB Circular A-110 also contains the requirements of primary awardees for the management of\nsubcontracts.12 Important elements of an effective subaward and subcontract oversight program\ninclude formal agreements defining work expectations and completion dates and reviews of\nsupporting documentation as a basis for subaward and subcontract payments. However, USD\nlacked such a program, although subawards and subcontracts represented over 50 percent of\naward expenditures on the Rite Link and PFI grants.13 Specifically our review found that all five\nsubawards and five subcontracts14 made on these grants were formalized well past the start of\nperformance, a subcontract with an unclear statement of work (SOW), invoices on a subcontract\npaid without adequate supporting documentation, a subcontractor used as a conduit to pass funds\nto another organization, and progress reports not received from both subrecipients and\nsubcontractors.\n\nThe following table lists, by applicable award, the subawards and subcontracts we reviewed and\nthe concerns identified with each:\n\n\n\n\n11\n OMB guidelines for subaward monitoring are delineated in OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local\nGovernments, and Non-Profit Organizations - Appendix B: March 2001 Compliance Supplement section M.\nSubrecipient Monitoring. See also, OMB Circular A-110, section .51(a) Reports and Records - Monitoring and\nreporting program performance.\n12\n OMB Circular A-110, sections .41 through .48 Procurement standards, requires that solicitations for goods and\nservices provide for a clear and accurate description what is to be performed under the procurement.\n13\n The same person was PI on both awards.\n14\n Includes consultant agreements, which were procured under Letters of Agreement (LOA).\n\n 7\n\x0c Review of Subawards and Subcontracts on Rite Link and PFI Grants\n Days work done\n before\n NSF Subawards and Award Reports:\n agreement Other Issues\n Award Subcontracts Amount signed\n Required Missing\n Rite Link SOW \xe2\x80\x93 did not specify report\n Subcontract $11,000 40 days 1\n grant content or due date\n\n Subaward 400,360 115 days 2 1\n\n Subcontract 36,128 111 days 2\n SOW vague, invoices paid with\n Subcontract 32,335 139 days 1 1 out adequate supporting\n 15\n documentation\n Rite Link\n $479,823 Avg. 101 days 6 2\n Subtotal\n\n Subaward\n PFI grant $16,513 21 days 3 2\n\n Subaward\n 17,558 24 days 3 2\n Subaward\n 20,962 39 days 3 2\n Subaward\n 17,513 85 days 3 2\n\n Subcontract\n 44,237 28 days\n\n Subcontract 470 20 days\n\n PFI Subtotal $117,253 Avg. 36 days 12 8\n\n TOTALS $597,076 Avg. 62 days 18 10\n\n\n\n Work begun before agreements formalized: All subrecipients and subcontractors\n began work before formal agreements were signed. The subrecipient agreements and\n subcontracts were not formalized until 20 to 139 days after work began, with the average\n being 62 days. By not formalizing until after work begins, USD risks misunderstandings\n with the subawardee or subcontractor as to the terms and conditions for how and on what\n grant funds can properly be expended.\n\n Unclear Statements of Work: The SOWs on two of the four Rite Link subcontracts\n were vague in defining work requirements and expected due dates. As a result, it was\n difficult to determine what NSF got for the funds expended on the larger of these two\n subcontracts. Although, the PI admitted disappointment with the performance of the\n subcontractor, the subcontractor claimed that it was not provided adequate direction on\n work expectations from the PI. Additionally, the PI used this subcontractor to pass\n\n\n\n15\n $12,000 under this subaward was passed directly to the Rite Team Association at the direction of the PI\n\n\n 8\n\x0c $12,000 directly to the Rite Team Association16 to obtain a marketing plan, even though\n this was not specified in the work requirements. Furthermore, an adequate marketing\n plan was not delivered and as of November 2003 almost the entire amount remained\n unspent on the books of the association.\n\n Outstanding reports: Subawardees and subcontractors did not provide 10 of 18\n progress and final reports required under the Rite Link and PFI grants. For example, for\n the four subawards under the PFI grant, eight of the twelve reports were not submitted.\n Nevertheless, USD paid all requests for reimbursement on the subawards with no\n indication as to why the deliverable requirements were not met or enforced.\n\nWithout active USD oversight, subawardees and subcontractors could incur costs not in line with\ngrant objectives, overcharge for costs incurred, and/or delay project completion. For example,\non the RITE Link subcontract indicated above, the PI was disappointed with the support\nprovided by a subcontractor, but had little recourse because the SOW was unclear.\n\nGrowth in Grant Workload Outpaced Resources For Grants Administration\n\nThe annual reporting and subaward/subcontract issues noted above occurred because staffing at\nUSD did not keep pace with the significant growth in USD\xe2\x80\x99s Federal grants program and USD\nlacked a full time research director. Specifically, the primary function of the Office of Research\nat USD is overseeing USD\xe2\x80\x99s grants program and assisting faculty in obtaining, administering,\nand accounting for research grants. USD\xe2\x80\x99s federal research program has experienced significant\ngrowth over the last 5 years, increasing Federal funds expended from over $12 million in\nFY 1998 to over $25 million in FY 2003. However, both the VP of the Office of Research and\nthe Associate Dean had direct research responsibilities, are board members of outside\norganizations, and traveled extensively limiting their ability to oversee USD\xe2\x80\x99s growing grants\nprogram. The USD President told us that USD needs a full time research director, but its\nestablishment has reportedly been delayed by the limited availability of funding. In any event,\nNSF Grant Conditions and the OMB Circulars require institutions to provide grant oversight,\nmaking it imperative that personnel assigned to the grant have sufficient availability to oversee\nFederal grants in its charge. Additional resources are therefore needed at USD, including the\nassignment of a research director who can devote sufficient time to managing grants\nadministration.\n\n Office of Research Staff Overextended\n\n The VP and the Associate Dean, with support from the Sponsored Programs Coordinator,\n share the responsibility for overseeing the overall administrative management of USD\xe2\x80\x99s\n grants program. However, neither the VP nor Associate Dean could adequately assist in\n this effort because they had many other responsibilities. For example, the VP was also\n the Dean of Graduate Education, PI on two NSF awards, Co-PI on four other awards, and\n\n\n16\n This non-profit entity consists of Rite Link grant first year trainees. The trainees formed this association to pool\ntheir resources in hopes of getting small consulting jobs after none of them received distance IT positions. The\namount remains on the books of the association after the firm they contracted with did not deliver an adequate plan.\n\n 9\n\x0c a sitting member on four boards.17 Similarly, the Associate Dean\xe2\x80\x99s time was significantly\n over-committed as well. Specifically, he served as the acting VP for the Office of\n Research from March 2002 to November 2002,18 which was in addition to carrying out\n his existing responsibilities, which alone added up to 150 percent of the Associate Dean\xe2\x80\x99s\n available time.19 In addition, both individuals traveled a great deal during FY 2003.\n Specifically the VP was on travel over 60 days and the Associate Dean over 70 days,\n further limiting their availability for grant oversight and administration. This lack of\n adequate time and resources led to several of the issues we found during the audit, for\n example the VP submitted the first annual report on the Council grant almost 4 years late\n and the Associate Dean, who was the PI on the Rite Link grant, did not notify NSF of\n problems with the grant, submitted an inaccurate and late annual report, and did not\n adequately manage the subawards and subcontracts made under this grant.\n\n The Sponsored Programs Coordinator reminded all PI\xe2\x80\x99s of due dates for final grant\n reports, but there was no system in place to ensure annual reports were prepared and\n submitted timely or accurately. We were told varying reasons why annual reporting had\n been late but of note, one PI stated he had just forgotten and would have benefited from a\n reminder.\n\n\n\n\n17\n The job description of the VP of the Office of Research showed his time divided as follows: VP of the Office of\nResearch (45 percent), Dean of Graduate Education (50 percent), and EPSCoR Representative (5 percent). He was\nPI on the Council Grant and on NSF award EPS-0126795, and Co-PI on four other awards. The boards he sits on\nare as follows: The EPSCoR Foundation, American Chemical Society, South Dakota Health Research Foundation,\nand South Dakota Health Technologies Institute.\n18\n The President of the USD took time off to run for Governor of South Dakota, and the VP of the Office of\nResearch assumed temporarily the full-time responsibilities for the VP of Academic Affairs from March 2002\nthrough November 2002.\n19\n The Associate Dean\xe2\x80\x99s indirect duties were as follows: maintain contact with funding agencies, assist faculty and\nstaff about funding opportunities, write successful research proposals (34 percent); develop working relationships\nand build partnerships with local business leaders (33 percent); and, manage the South Dakota Health Technologies,\nInc. (33 percent). It should be noted that this last function was reassigned as of 10/1/2003. However, he was unable\nto fully perform these functions because at the same time, he was working 50 percent of his time directly on two\nNSF awards (as PI he directly charged 40 percent of his time to the Rite Link grant and 10 percent to the PFI grant).\nLastly, he was a member of three boards as well: the Small Business High Technology Institute, the Genesis of\nInnovation for South Dakota, and the RITE Team Association.\n\n 10\n\x0cRecommendations:\n\n1. We recommend that the Division Director, Division of Grants and Agreements in conjunction\nwith the Division Director, Division of Institution and Award Support ensure USD assign\nresponsibility for overseeing administration of Federal grants to a full time research director,\nwho is independent of the research and who will have sufficient time to focus on grant\nadministration duties. In addition, this person should ensure current staffing levels are adequate\nto administer a growing research program.\n\n Auditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n USD plans to separate the responsibilities for overseeing the Office of Research from the\n responsibilities for overseeing the Graduate School and change the level of effort of the\n VP for Research to a full-time position to oversee the Office of Research. In addition,\n USD is searching for a permanent VP for Research. The University also plans to review\n staffing levels for the Office of Research and will include any needed staff increase in the\n 2006 budget process.\n\n Auditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\n Once implemented, we believe USD\xe2\x80\x99s actions addressing the staffing of research\n administration should adequately address the recommendation.\n\n2. We recommend that the Division Director, Division of Grants and Agreements in conjunction\nwith the Division Director, Division of Institution and Award Support direct USD to institute\npolicies that ensure sponsoring agencies are notified in a timely manner of events that\nsignificantly affect a project, and requirements for annual reporting and procurement and\nmonitoring of subawards are met.\n\n Auditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n Regarding inadequate notification of problems on Rite Link grant, USD disagreed with\n our finding that it did not keep NSF adequately informed in a timely manner.\n Specifically, USD claimed that it informed NSF program personnel about the grant\n problems during a site visit in November 2002. Furthermore, USD claims the annual\n report \xe2\x80\x9cclearly informed NSF that the decline in IT economy during the project was\n having an adverse impact on the project.\xe2\x80\x9d USD further states that there were \xe2\x80\x9cfour\n different NSF program managers assigned to the project during the time period discussed\n in the audit report.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Pertaining to the timeliness and accuracy of annual reports, the auditee agreed to improve\n timeliness of annual reports and the accuracy of hours reported in annual reports by\n providing its PIs with reminders 30 days prior to annual report due dates and to include a\n reminder to verify the number of hours each person worked. However, USD claimed the\n statements from the Rite Link annual reports were \xe2\x80\x9ctaken out of context,\xe2\x80\x9d and therefore\n the audit report does not correctly represent the facts. They restate several sentences\n\n\n 11\n\x0cfrom the annual progress report and provide some additional information to explain how\nthe audit has taken quotes out of context. Specifically, USD raises the following\nconcerns:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Regarding plans to expand the program to other states, USD states the program\n reached other states as evidenced by a conference held on September 29, 2002, in\n which representatives participated from North Dakota and Nebraska. Training\n could also reach other states, as evidenced by several \xe2\x80\x9cremote participants\xe2\x80\x9d\n successfully completing training over the Internet.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Concerning the impact on rural economic development, USD believes that if the\n entire paragraph from the annual report were included in the report, their claim on\n impacting rural economic development would be clearly identified. Of note, the\n paragraph discusses the receptiveness of rural communities to the project\xe2\x80\x99s\n objectives and the fact that over 700 hundred people attended two Rite Link\n community meetings and over 100 participated in the training.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 With respect to the lack of business partner involvement and hiring, USD also\n included the entire paragraph from the annual report to support its position that\n USD correctly represented that the grant was not meeting its objectives. The\n paragraph discussed how the downturn in the economy made the task of\n identifying business partners \xe2\x80\x9cmuch more difficult.\xe2\x80\x9d The annual progress report\n also states that the project team had met with several \xe2\x80\x9clarge IT companies such as\n Microsoft and Time Warner/AOL to discuss the project\xe2\x80\x9d and claims these\n companies were very supportive of the concept, but were not hiring anyone.\n\nUSD also states that significant changes have been made to its subaward procedures such\nas requiring \xe2\x80\x9cclear statements of work, definition of deliverables or milestones and\npayment schedules tied to deliverables.\xe2\x80\x9d USD also informed us that the Rite Team\nAssociation had ceased operations as of August 2004 and the Association planned to\nreturn any remaining funds to the contributing rural communities.\n\nAuditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nPertaining to inadequate notification of problems on Rite Link grant, we recognize that\nNSF officials were made aware of some of the problems being experienced on the grant\nduring its site visit in November 2002, however these problems existed at the time the\nannual report was prepared, which was prepared prior to the site visit. Based on\ndiscussions with NSF program personnel and our review of the site visit report, we saw\nno evidence that USD informed NSF during the site visit about the lack of business\npartner involvement and the fact that the training did not result in hiring any people for IT\npositions. USD does not explain why the annual report issued in September 2002, two\nmonths prior to the site visit, did not convey the extent of the problems on the grant.\nPrompt and accurate notification to NSF of grant problems in annual progress reports is\nessential so NSF program officers have the opportunity to timely address these types of\nproblems.\n\n\n 12\n\x0c In relation to the timeliness and accuracy of annual reports, the new procedure of\n reminding the PIs of impending due dates for annual reports along with the new\n procedure to verify the accuracy of its participants are positive steps that should address\n the problems of late annual reporting and misrepresenting the level of effort of\n participants on projects. However, regarding the accuracy of the Rite Link grant annual\n report, our interviews with the PI and the co-PI on the Rite Link grant support our\n position that the statements in the annual report were inaccurate. We believe our findings\n concerning the inaccurate annual report are still valid. Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Regarding plans to expand the program to other states, we believe the\n information about a conference which included out-of-state participants and a\n few trainees taught via the Internet does not support that there was an official\n plan to expand the program to other states. Also, during the audit the Co-PI at\n DSU responsible for developing and conducting the training said there was\n never a realistic plan to \xe2\x80\x9coutreach\xe2\x80\x9d the training program to other states.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Concerning the impact on rural economic development, the grantee does not\n explain how the project had an impact on rural economic development other\n than quoting the entire paragraph from the annual report. We expected the\n annual report to address the impact on rural economic development by stating\n the grant effect on businesses hiring IT positions.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Pertaining to the lack of business partner involvement and hiring, USD does\n not explain how quoting the entire paragraph refutes our position that the\n annual report exaggerates the involvement of the business partners and the\n perception that trainees were being hired.\n\n The changes proposed by the USD regarding the subaward management procedures\n appear to address our recommendations. Also, because the Rite Team Association\n ceased operations as of August 2004 and did not have any unspent funds, we removed\n our recommendation regarding NSF following up on the unspent funds.\n\n3. We recommend that the Division Director, Division of Grants and Agreements in conjunction\nwith the Division Director, Division of Institution and Award Support recognize USD as a high-\nrisk awardee under its risk management program and as part of this program consider an on-site\nvisit to ensure USD implements corrective actions to address our recommendations.\n\n Auditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n USD believes it should not be categorized as a high-risk awardee because it either\n adequately addressed the recommendations cited in the report or it disagreed with the\n audit findings.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cAuditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nAs part of its post award monitoring process, NSF should ensure the USD actions have\nbeen implemented and have corrected the findings disclosed in audit report. Until NSF\nhas made such a determination, we believe USD should be categorized as a high-risk\nawardee.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c2. Unallowable Costs Claimed\n\n OMB Circular A-110 requires a grantee to have a documented system to identify whether costs\n are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with applicable cost principles.\n Specifically, the grantee should have a documented procedure in place to identify which\n functions are to be charged direct or indirect. Our audit found that USD adequately tracks,\n accounts, and maintains documentary support for direct costs charged to NSF grants except for\n one instance where it incorrectly charged $11,972 of augmented salaries to one NSF award.\n However, USD lacked an understanding of indirect costs and did not assign an individual the\n responsibility of determining whether a cost is direct or indirect. As a result USD\n inappropriately charged indirect costs totaling $130,620, as direct costs or cost sharing, on four\n different NSF awards20, thereby recovering twice for the same costs. Specifically, USD:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Claimed the same salary costs twice, as both direct and indirect costs on Council grant;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Claimed the same salary costs twice, both as indirect and as cost sharing on three NSF\n awards;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Claimed proposal preparation costs incorrectly as direct costs on the Council grant; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Augmented faculty salaries with NSF grant funds without required NSF approval.\n\n Appendix A contains a schedule delineating the unallowable costs of $142,592, and costs sharing\n at risk of $53,875. Each finding is discussed separately below.\n\n Salary Costs Claimed Directly and Indirectly on the Council Grant\n\n OMB Circular A-21 requires that costs be charged consistently either directly to projects or\n indirectly as facilities and administrative (F&A) costs. USD did not consistently charge its\n project administrative costs as indirect costs and instead directly charged some of the same costs\n to NSF awards. In particular, USD incorrectly charged $105,125, which equates to half of the\n salary for the VP of the Office of Research (who is also the Dean of Graduate Education),\n directly to the Council grant for 14 months. USD included the salary and fringe benefits of the\n VP of the Office of Research as part of its F&A rates and therefore, these costs are not eligible to\n be charged directly to NSF awards. Although USD recovered the VP\xe2\x80\x99s salary through indirect\n costs, USD proposed the VP\xe2\x80\x99s salary as direct costs on an NSF grant. Furthermore, except for\n the 14 months when the VP was the PI on the Council grant; USD\xe2\x80\x99s grants accounting office\n correctly charged his salary to indirect cost functions.\n\n VP Salary Incorrectly Claimed as Cost Sharing\n\n OMB specifies that unrecovered indirect costs can be claimed as cost sharing on Federal awards.\n However, USD recovered Office of Research expenses as part of indirect costs and claimed the\n same costs as cost sharing. Specifically, we found that a portion of the VP\xe2\x80\x99s salary was claimed\n\n\n\n 20\n We expanded our scope to look at all active NSF awards that had cost sharing requirements and found that a\n portion of the VP\xe2\x80\x99s salary was also incorrectly claimed as cost sharing on 2 other awards, EPS-9977752 and EPS-\n 0126795.\n\n 15\n\x0cas cost sharing on 3 NSF awards: EPS-9977752 ($11,980) and EPS-0126795 ($24,897) and the\nPFI grant ($28,978).21\n\n\nUnallocable Proposal Preparation Costs Charged to the Council Grant\n\nOMB Circular A-21 states that proposal preparation expenses should be charged as part of\nindirect costs and therefore are reimbursable through the F&A rate. However, we found a\nconsultant\xe2\x80\x99s fee of $7,000 to write a grant proposal22 and related travel expenses of $2,552\nincorrectly charged as direct costs to the Council grant.\n\nUnapproved Augmented Faculty Salaries on the PFI Grant\n\nOMB Circular A-21, states that grant funds should not be used to increase the base salary of\nfaculty members unless the sponsoring agency approves, in writing, such augmented salaries.\nWe found that USD augmented the salaries of two faculty members using PFI grant funds. One\nperson was paid $5,000 and another $2,500 above their base salaries with PFI grant funds, as\nevidenced by copies of the employment contracts for the two faculty members. According to the\nNSF program officer for the grant, NSF had not given approval for augmented payments to\nfaculty members on this grant.\n\nInadequate Understanding of Indirect Cost Rate Structure and Federal Regulations Led to\nQuestioned Costs and Cost Sharing at Risk\n\nDuring the audit we found that USD\xe2\x80\x99s current predetermined rate was based on a proposal\ndeveloped in 1993 by a consulting firm. The initial negotiated predetermined rate agreement\nexpired in June 1999, and at that time HHS decreased the existing rate by one percent and\nextended it through 2006 without USD providing a new indirect cost proposal. Partially because\nUSD relied on a consulting firm to compile the proposal, USD staff did not have an adequate\nunderstanding of its F&A rate structure. For example, in 1993 one individual worked half time\nas VP of the Office of Research, and a different person was the half time Dean of Graduate\nEducation, but both of these positions were included as part of the indirect costs pools.\nHowever, USD was not aware of this and in 1998 when the VP of the Office of Research, who\nwas also the Dean of Graduate Education, proposed half of his salary as direct costs on the\nCouncil grant, USD did not note the inconsistency nor did it revise its indirect cost rate structure\nto reflect the direct charging of the VP salary to NSF awards. This lack of understanding also\ndirectly led to the unallowable cost sharing and the costs sharing at risk.\n\nThe Manager of Accounting Services did not think USD needed a documented process for\nkeeping track of its actual indirect costs because of the predetermined rates in place. He added\n\n21\n USD also claimed cost sharing on a portion of the salary of the Associate Dean of the Office of Research on the\nPFI grant, however as this position did not exist at the time of the indirect cost proposal in 1993, we did not question\nthis salary. USD should be aware that because the Office of Research was established as an indirect function,\nsalaries of personnel assigned to this office, even those added since the cost proposal like the Associate Dean, are\ntechnically not eligible for cost sharing on NSF awards.\n22\n The proposal was for a NSF Math and Science Partnership grant.\n\n 16\n\x0cthat even if they wanted to track these costs they didn\xe2\x80\x99t have the necessary staff. Nevertheless,\nUSD needs to have a documented system in place that defines which functions are indirect and\nwhich are direct so that costs are not claimed twice on any NSF awards.\n\nDuring the course of the audit we also found that Office of Research personnel, specifically the\nVP and the Associate Dean, were either not sufficiently aware of Federal regulations or should\nhave better enforced them. For example proposal writing costs were incorrectly charged directly\nto the Council grant because the Associate Dean, who was acting on behalf of the VP of the\nOffice of Research at the time, did not know that proposal writing costs are supposed to be\ncharged as indirect costs. Additionally, the salaries of two faculty members were augmented\nwith funds from an NSF grant without the required approval from NSF.\n\nRecommendations:\n\n4. We recommend that the Division Director, Division of Grants and Agreements in conjunction\nwith the Division Director, Division of Institution and Award Support direct that USD Office of\nResearch personnel improve its written procedures for determining the reasonableness,\nallocability and allowability of costs in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Federal\ncost principles, and in coordination with the HHS Division of Cost Allocation, document which\nfunctions are overhead and which are direct and that this system be used when negotiating\nUSD\xe2\x80\x99s next F&A rates. Additionally, USD needs to ensure that its personnel are adequately\ntrained in applying the applicable Federal cost principles.\n\n Auditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n USD believes it has adequate procedures already in place \xe2\x80\x9cfor determining the\n reasonableness, allocability and allowability of costs in accordance with the provisions of\n the Federal cost principles\xe2\x80\x9d for educational institutions. USD\xe2\x80\x99s proposal routing system\n has processes in place to evaluate each proposal submitted for adherence to Federal cost\n principles. Further, USD states it is in the process of renegotiating its F&A rates with\n HHS, which will determine which functions are direct.\n\n Auditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\n USD does have some procedures in place for determining adherence to the Federal cost\n principles, but these procedures did not prevent the charging of indirect salary costs\n directly on an NSF award, claiming of already recovered costs as cost sharing on three\n NSF awards, charging proposal preparation costs to an NSF award, and augmenting\n faculty salary with NSF grant funds. USD needs to ensure that its policies and\n procedures are in accordance with applicable Federal cost principles and that all\n personnel working on or administering Federal grants are following these policies and\n procedures.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c5. We recommend that the Division Director, Division of Grants and Agreements in conjunction\nwith the Division Director, Division of Institution and Award Support recover the unallowable\ncosts and cost sharing of $142,592.\n\n Auditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n a. Questioned PI Salary of $105,125 on Council grant \xe2\x80\x93 The auditee disputes that it\n claimed the salary costs directly and indirectly on the Council grant. Specifically,\n USD lists several reasons why it was allowed to claim 50 percent of salary for the VP\n for the Office of Research:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The indirect cost rate was based on the VP as a 50 percent position, thus the other\n 50 percent could be claimed as direct costs on Federal awards.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Regarding the indirect cost rate agreement between HHS and USD, HHS required\n prior approval only for changes to the accounting system. USD charging the VP\n directly on a Federal award was not an accounting change and HHS prior\n approval was not necessary.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The support for USD\xe2\x80\x99s research infrastructure increased from 1998 to the present\n and \xe2\x80\x9cat no time during this period, including the 14 months in question, was the\n research infrastructure allowed to fall below that upon which the indirect cost\n agreement was based.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n b. Questioned proposal preparation and related travel costs of $13,516 \xe2\x80\x93 USD does not\n dispute the questioned costs of $9,905 related to paying a consultant for proposal\n preparation costs or the related travel costs of $3,611.\n\n c. Questioned cost sharing of $11,979 on award CPDI-9977752 - USD did not provide\n alternative cost sharing for this closed award because the OIG told them not to\n provide alternative cost sharing. .\n\n d. Augmented faculty salaries of $11,972 - USD does not dispute that it improperly\n augmented faculty members\xe2\x80\x99 salary, but it requests that actions taken to ensure this\n does not happen in the future be taken into account during the audit resolution\n process.\n\n Auditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\n a. Questioned PI Salary of $105,125 on Council grant \xe2\x80\x93 The comments forwarded by\n USD do not effectively refute the fact that USD claimed the salary costs both directly\n and indirectly on the Council grant. Specifically, the PI position included 50 percent\n of his time as the VP for the Office of Research and the other 50 percent of his time\n as the Dean of Graduate Education. USD has not recognized that both of these\n positions are recovered as part of the HHS approved indirect cost rates. Therefore,\n USD could not charge any of his salary directly to NSF awards during the 14 months\n\n\n 18\n\x0c in question. The prior approval provision by HHS is not germane, as we are not\n questioning the indirect costs. In addition, USD claim that support for its research\n infrastructure increased over time is misleading. The actual support provided on\n individual research awards decreased over time because the amount of research grew\n significantly since 1998, without a proportional increase in the research infrastructure.\n\n b. Questioned proposal preparation and related travel costs of $13,516 - We concur with\n USD in its decision to reimburse NSF for the unallowable proposal preparation costs\n including the related travel costs.\n\n c. Questioned cost sharing of $11,979 on award EPS-9977752 \xe2\x80\x93 Our office recognizes\n that there was a misunderstanding regarding USD\xe2\x80\x99s need to respond to this issue,\n however USD still needs to reimburse NSF for this questioned cost sharing because\n the claimed cost sharing was the salary of the VP who could not be claimed as cost\n sharing.\n\n d. Augmented faculty salaries of $11,972 \xe2\x80\x93 We concur with USD\xe2\x80\x99s response that it\n improperly augmented faculty members\xe2\x80\x99 salary.\n\n5. We recommend that the Division Director, Division of Grants and Agreements in conjunction\nwith the Division Director, Division of Institution and Award Support require USD to provide\nalternative plans to meet the $53,875 of cost sharing requirements on on-going NSF grants EHR-\n0125385 (the PFI grant) and EPS-0126795.\n\n Auditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n USD obtained a waiver from NSF for the costs sharing on EPS-0126795 and negotiated\n an alternative plan for the cost sharing on the PFI grant.\n\n Auditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\n Once implemented, we believe USD\xe2\x80\x99s actions addressing the cost sharing issue should\n adequately address the recommendation\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c Appendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS AND COST SHARING AT RISK\n\n Questioned Direct Applicable Indirect Total Questioned\n Description\n NSF Award Costs Applicable Fringe Costs Costs Notes\n QUESTIONED COSTS\nEPS-9871955 7/1/98 - 6/30/03\n(Council grant) PI Salary $ 64,722 $ 9,571 $ 30,832 $ 105,125 1\n Consultant $ 7,000 N/a $ 2,905 $ 9,905 2\n Associated Travel $ 2,552 N/a $ 1,059 $ 3,611 3\n Total $ 74,274 $ 9,571 $ 34,796 $ 118,641\n\nEPS-9977752 3/15/00 \xe2\x80\x93 2/28/01\n Cost Sharing - PI Salary $ 7,445 $ 1,081 $ 3,453 $ 11,979 4\n\nEHR-0125385 1/01/02 - 12/31/04\n(PFI grant) Augmented Salaries $ 7,500 $ 1,021 $ 3,451 $ 11,972 5\n Total Questioned Costs $ 89,219 $ 11,673 $ 41,700 $ 142,592\n\n\n AT RISK COST SHARING\nEHR-0125385 1/01/02 - 12/31/04\n(PFI grant) Co-PI Salary $ 17,723 $ 2,902 $ 8,353 $ 28,978 6\n\nEPS-0126795 11/15/01-10/31/04\n PI Salary $ 14,768 $ 2,952 $ 7,177 $ 24,897 7\n Total Cost Sharing at Risk $ 53,875\n Notes\n1. USD claimed half of the VP\xe2\x80\x99s salary direct for 14 months (Jan - Jun 2001 @ $4,415.75 per month, and July 2001 - Feb 2002 @ $4,778.42\nper month) even though his salary was recovered indirectly as part of the F&A rate. Applicable indirect rate was 41.5 percent\n2. The consultant was paid $7,000 for writing a proposal for Math & Science Partnership grant. The applicable indirect rate was 40.5 percent.\n3. The travel was for three people (two USD personnel and the consultant) to attend a Math and Science Partnership seminar to aid them in\nwriting the grant proposal.\n4. USD claimed salary costs of the VP of the Office of Research as cost sharing even though his salary was already recovered indirectly.\nAward expired 2/28/01.\n5. Two faculty members were paid in excess of their base salaries. One member had an 11 month employment contract and was paid $2,500\nin July 2002 and $2,500 in December 2002. The other faculty member had a nine-month contract and was paid $2,500 in December 2002.\n6. The Co-PI is the VP of the Office of Research, but the VP\xe2\x80\x99s salary cannot be claimed as cost sharing as his salary is already recovered\nindirectly as part of the F&A rate.\n7. The total proposed cost sharing on this award equals $128,374, $24,897 of which is salary costs for the VP. The salary costs are already\nrecovered indirectly and therefore could not be claimed as cost sharing.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c"


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 21.10.2017
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 272/15
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2017/1928
 z dne 20. oktobra 2017
 o vpisu imena v register zaščitenih označb porekla in zaščitenih geografskih označb (Kintoa (ZOP))
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. novembra 2012 o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil (1) ter zlasti členov 15(1) in 52(2) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 V skladu s členom 50(2)(a) Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 je bil zahtevek za registracijo imena „Kintoa“, ki ga je vložila Francija, objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije
 (2).
 (2)
 Ker v skladu s členom 51 Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Komisija ni prejela nobenega ugovora, bi bilo treba ime „Kintoa“ registrirati.
 (3)
 Francoski organi so z dopisom, prejetim 22. avgusta 2016, sporočili Komisiji, da je kmetijsko gospodarstvo z omejeno odgovornostjo du Carré (Alain Cazanave, Le chalet, 380 Chemin du Carré, 64300 Sallespisse) s sedežem na njihovem ozemlju zakonito in neprekinjeno tržilo proizvod s prodajnim imenom „Kintoa“ več kot pet let in da je bilo to obravnavano v okviru nacionalnega postopka ugovora.
 (4)
 Ker podjetje iz uvodne izjave 3 izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 15(1) Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012, bi mu bilo treba zaradi zagotovitve prehodnega obdobja za zakonito uporabo prodajnega imena po njegovi registraciji odobriti prehodno obdobje, ki bi trajalo do 31. decembra 2017, kar bi podjetju omogočilo, da še naprej uporablja ime „Kintoa“.
 (5)
 Ukrepi iz te uredbe so v skladu z mnenjem Odbora za politiko kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Ime „Kintoa“ (ZOP) se registrira.
 Ime iz prvega odstavka opredeljuje proizvod skupine 1.1 Sveže meso (in klavnični izdelki) iz Priloge XI k Izvedbeni uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 668/2014 (3).
 Člen 2
 Kmetijskemu gospodarstvu z omejeno odgovornostjo du Carré (Alain Cazanave, Le chalet, 380 Chemin du Carré, 64300 Sallespisse) se dovoli, da še naprej uporablja registrirano ime „Kintoa“ (ZOP) do 31. decembra 2017.
 Člen 3
 Ta uredba začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 20. oktobra 2017
 Za Komisijo
 Predsednik
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) UL L 343, 14.12.2012, str. 1.
 (2) UL C 90, 23.3.2017, str. 9.
 (3) Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 668/2014 z dne 13. junija 2014 o pravilih za uporabo Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil (UL L 179, 19.6.2014, str. 36).


type: wikipedia

text:
La Bataille de Shar al-Shatt (Arabe : شارع الشط Shār' ash-Shaṭ ; Sciara Sciat en italien) ou bataille de Sciara-Sciat a eu lieu le 23 octobre 1911 dans le village de Shar al-Shatt, dans la banlieue de Tripoli, en Libye, entre les Italiens et les troupes des Turcs soutenues par des milliers de rebelles locaux au début de la Guerre italo-turque.
 L'affrontement, qui commence par une manœuvre de diversion le long du côté ouest de la ligne défensive italienne, culmine dans le secteur opposé, dans la zone de Shar al-Shatt, située à l'intérieur de l'oasis à l'est de Tripoli. Bien qu'encerclés, les Italiens parviennent à éviter la percée des lignes et à récupérer les positions perdues au début de la bataille, gardant fermement le contrôle de la ville. La bataille de Shar al-Shatt est l'affrontement qui a causé le plus grand nombre de pertes italiennes pendant la guerre de Libye.
 Cinq cent trois officiers et hommes italiens ont été tués lors des combats et du massacre des soldats qui s'étaient rendus. L'incident est connu sous le nom de "Massacre des Italiens à Sciara Sciat".
 Les attaques de diversion
 Le 23 octobre 1911, le capitaine Carlo Maria Piazza effectue ce qui est considéré comme le premier vol de combat, en effectuant une reconnaissance au sud-ouest de Tripoli, où il détecte une certaine activité dans le camp ennemi, mais le rapport qu'il fait n'est pas transmis au commandement, tandis qu'un second vol, effectué cette fois par le capitaine Riccardo Moizo, ne détecte rien d'intéressant. En fait, ils n'ont pas effectué une véritable reconnaissance aérienne mais se sont limités à des tests d'efficacité en vol des moteurs du même avion avec un simple survol de l'oasis près de Tripoli. Le même matin, les Ottomans, soutenus par des milices arabes, attaquent soudainement le périmètre de défense italien à Tripoli. À cette époque, le périmètre défensif de la ville (d'environ 13 km de long) était tenu par environ 8 500 hommes et trois batteries d'artillerie : le 6 régiment d'infanterie et le 40 régiment d'infanterie à l'ouest, les 82 et 84 régiments d'infanterie avec un front sud au centre et le 11 régiment de Bersaglieri à l'est. La première attaque engage la zone à l'ouest de Tripoli tenue par le 6 régiment d'infanterie, qui avec l'intervention du cuirassé Sicilia repousse facilement l'assaut. Une deuxième attaque ottomane frappe à nouveau les défenses occidentales de Tripoli tenues par le 82 régiment d'infanterie, qui est à nouveau facilement repoussé tandis que des tirs sporadiques de fusils sont signalés contre les fantassins italiens depuis l'oasis derrière eux . Des opérations de ratissage sont immédiatement organisées, entraînant des arrestations et des saisies d'armes.
 L'assaut sur l'oasis de Shar al-Shatt
 Les attaques menées par le colonel Nesciat contre les positions italiennes dans la matinée n'ont servi qu'à masquer l'attaque principale qui était dirigée contre les positions orientales moins garnies tenues par le de Bersaglieri commandé par le colonel (vcolonnello) Gustavo Fara et qui, en raison de la conformation de la zone, ne pouvaient être fortifiées de manière adéquate.
 En fait, elles traversaient Menscia, un quartier densément peuplé de l'oasis de Tripoli, et ne pouvaient donc pas être soutenues par l'artillerie (en raison de l'absence de champ de tir) et n'avaient pas été préparées à la défense pour éviter d'endommager les biens des habitants. Le déploiement des bersaglieri a vu le XXXIII bataillon déployé sans réserve entre Fort Messri et Henni, le XXVII bataillon entre Henni et la mer avec une compagnie en réserve à Bu Sette, et le XV bataillon en réserve à l'est de Henni.
 L'attaque principale est dirigée contre les bersaglieri, frappant au petit matin la du XXXIII bataillon, qui tient garnison au fort Messri, rapidement renforcée par la , la du XV bataillon et des unités d'infanterie, parvenant à repousser les assaillants au prix de pertes élevées. A nouveau, la compagnie est attaquée par derrière par des civils qui tirent cachés dans l'oasis. La , déployée à Henni, est également durement engagée, combattant jusqu'à la tombée de la nuit, renforcée par les et du XV bataillon et la du XXVII bataillon, qui s'étaient d'abord dirigées vers la mosquée de Bu Mescia le long de la route du cimetière de Rebab, puis vers Henni où la défense était dirigée par Gustavo Fara.
 La situation la plus critique se produit dans le secteur du XXVII Bataillon, positionné autour de Shar al-Shatt avec la 4 compagnie à l'est de Henni flanquée sur sa gauche de la 5e compagnie, déployée jusqu'à la mer. Également frappé par de violentes attaques, le bataillon ne peut compter sur aucune réserve ni aucun renfort immédiat et se trouve bientôt en sérieuses difficultés, aggravées par le nombre croissant d'attaques dans ses propres rangs par la population locale. La 4 compagnie est contrainte de se replier vers le cimetière de Rebab, où elle se barricade pour se défendre jusqu'à la reddition.
 La a d'abord réussi à tenir, mais vers 13 heures, elle a dû elle aussi se replier, d'abord à Amedia, puis à Tripoli même, constamment harcelée par les attaquants et sous le feu de la population locale qui tirait de toutes les maisons, subissant également de lourdes pertes. Les prisonniers des et , soit environ 290 bersaglieri, sont tous concentrés dans le cimetière de Rebab et y sont massacrés.
 La situation ne se stabilise que vers 17 heures, avec l'afflux d'un bataillon du 82 d'infanterie, et de deux bataillons de marins formés par les compagnies de débarquement du Sicilia, du Sardegna, du Re Umberto et du Carlo Alberto, appuyés par une batterie de débarquement de 75 mm déjà déployée à Bu Meliana. Shar al-Shatt n'a été réoccupé qu'au coucher du soleil par les fantassins du d'infanterie soutenus par les restes des et Bersaglieri (réduites à seulement 57 survivants encadrés dans deux pelotons), après un combat de maison à maison.
 Le massacre des bersaglieri et la répression
 Lorsque les Italiens ont repris la zone du cimetière de Rebab, ils ont découvert que presque tous les prisonniers avaient été massacrés. Selon le rapport officiel italien, "beaucoup ont été aveuglés, décapités, crucifiés, éviscérés, brûlés vifs ou découpés en morceaux". Un récit similaire a été fourni par le journaliste italo-argentin Enzo D'Armesano, envoyé sur place pour le journal La Prensa de Buenos Aires.
 Le lendemain matin, des perquisitions ont commencé dans la zone de Shar al-Shatt, visant à saisir des armes et des munitions, effectuées par l'un des bataillons de marine. Ils ont ensuite vérifié chaque maison, puis passé au peigne fin toute l'oasis. Tous ceux qui ont été trouvés armés ont été immédiatement pris en charge et ceux qui étaient considérés comme des voyous ont été arrêtés et escortés à Tripoli. Au cours des trois jours suivants, une véritable chasse à l'Arabe a lieu, exacerbée également par la cruauté des Arabes eux-mêmes envers les blessés et les prisonniers tombés entre leurs mains. Le Premier ministre Giovanni Giolitti se retrouve avec un grand nombre de prisonniers civils à gérer en territoire ennemi et propose quelques jours plus tard de les déporter vers les îles Tremiti en Italie. Sur la Tremiti, il y avait déjà un camp qui pouvait accueillir jusqu'à 400 prisonniers, mais finalement environ 1 300 sont arrivés, tandis que d'autres étaient destinés à d'autres endroits. Dans l'opinion publique italienne, la nouvelle de la bataille sanglante et le sort des bersaglieri massacrés à Shar al-Shatt ont renforcé l'idée que la répression contre les insurgés était permise en Libye. En revanche, la presse étrangère condamne la réaction italienne, la presse britannique étant particulièrement sévère, les journaux libéraux étant en première ligne tandis que les journaux conservateurs, tout en condamnant l'action italienne, gardent un ton plus modéré.
 Il n'est pas possible de faire un décompte des victimes de la répression italienne car aucun chiffre n'a été établi à l'époque, les seuls chiffres certains concernent les pertes italiennes qui s'élèvent à 105 morts auxquelles il faut ajouter les 290 disparus qui ont été tués dans le cimetière de Rebab mais qui ont été retrouvés plus tard.
 La bataille du 23 octobre à Shar al-Shatt est pour les Italiens le fait d'armes le plus sanglant de toute la campagne, avec 378 morts (dont 8 officiers) et 125 blessés.
 La bataille de Henni
 Trois jours après la bataille de Shar al-Shatt, le 26 octobre, à 5 heures du matin, et avec toutes les forces disponibles, les Ottomans attaquent à nouveau Tripoli, engageant tout le secteur sud-est. Malgré des percées limitées à l'ouest, la ligne italienne parvient à tenir, principalement grâce à la couverture d'artillerie et aux contre-attaques des renforts venant de la ville (au cours de ces affrontements, entre autres, le médaillé d'or de la valeur militaire, le sous-lieutenant de vaisseau (Sottotenente di Vascello) Riccardo Grazioli Lante della Rovere, est mort). À 8 heures du matin, l'action turque était terminée et les forces d'attaque étaient en fuite. Une attaque simultanée sur le front est de la ligne de défense n'a pas eu de meilleur résultat.
 Dans le courant du mois de novembre, sept bataillons d'infanterie, un alpini, un grenadier et une batterie de 75 mm sont transportés d'Italie, réunis dans la 3 division spéciale.(lieutenant général Felice De Chaurand). Le 26 novembre, le 11 Bersaglieri et le 93 Infanterie avec deux bataillons de grenadiers réoccupent totalement l'oasis et reprennent toutes les positions laissées entre le 27 et le 28 octobre, protégés sur le flanc gauche par les 23 et 52 Régiments d'infanterie contre d'éventuelles attaques venant d'Ain Zara.
 Conséquences
 Le Premier ministre Giovanni Giolitti, après la bataille de Shar al-Shatt , pousse à mettre l'armée en mouvement à la recherche d'une victoire qui restaurerait le prestige italien en Europe. Cependant, le général Caneva était sceptique quant au succès de cette opération car il craignait le désert, auquel les troupes italiennes n'étaient pas habituées, et proposait à la place de lancer une propagande efficace qui séparerait les éléments arabes et turcs dans le camp adverse.
 D'un point de vue militaire, la contre-offensive ottomane raccourcit le périmètre à l'est avec l'abandon de certaines positions (Fort Hamidiè, Henni et Fort Mesri). Sur le plan politique, en revanche, elle marque la fin de l'illusion italienne de pouvoir collaborer avec les Arabes pour chasser les Turcs. Pendant ce temps, les Turcs engagent la garnison de Tripoli par des actions de guérilla, en utilisant des tireurs d'élite et en tirant des obus d'artillerie isolés avec des pièces qui sont déplacées immédiatement.
 Plus tard, un autre corps d'armée a été amené en Libye et le nombre d'unités est passé à 103 000 hommes en moins de deux mois.
 Note
 Source
 Bibliographie
 Paolo Valera, Le giornate di Sciarasciat fotografate, Milan, Stab. Tip. Borsani, 1912.
 Nicola Labanca, La guerra italiana per la Libia: 1911-1931, Bologne: Il Mulino, 2012
 Sergio Romano, La quarta sponda : dalla guerra di Libia alle rivolte arabe, Milan: Longanesi, 2015
 Bruce Vandervort, Verso la quarta sponda la guerra italiana per la Libia (1911-1912), Romae, état-major de l'armée, 2012.
 Marco Gabriele, La Marina nella Guerra Italo-Turca, Rome, Naval Historical Office, 1998, pp. 235.
 Voir aussi
 Guerre italo-turque
 Guerre italo-turque
 Bataille impliquant l'Italie
 Bataille impliquant l'Empire ottoman
 Bataille de 1911


type: caselaw

text:
 322 Md. 606 (1991)
 589 A.2d 53
 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
 v.
 RUBEN IRVIN HAMBY.
 Misc. (Subtitle BV) No. 32, September Term, 1990.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 April 26, 1991.
 John C. Broderick, Asst. Bar Counsel for Atty. Grievance Com'n of Md.
 William A. Lee Clarke, III, Salisbury, for respondent.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, CHASANOW and KARWACKI, JJ., and EDWARD A. DeWATERS, Jr., Judge, Specially Assigned.
 MURPHY, Chief Judge.
 Ruben Irvin Hamby, a member of the Maryland Bar since 1986, was charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission, acting through Bar Counsel, with violating Rule 8.4(b) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides:
 "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
 * * * * * *
 "(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
 * * * * * *
 "(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
 Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 b, we referred the matter to Judge Warren B. Duckett, Jr. of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
 After a hearing, Judge Duckett found that on November 26, 1987, Hamby, upon being observed by a uniformed police officer as he stood near a bank window, ran from the officer and attempted to discard "a hypodermic syringe with needle intact." Hamby resisted the officer's efforts to arrest him; those efforts included attacking the officer with the syringe, after which "a wrestling match ensued until the officer received assistance from three other officers." The evidence showed that Hamby's syringe contained cocaine.
 On December 16, 1988, Hamby pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Howard County of possessing cocaine and drug paraphernalia in violation of Maryland Code (1987 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, §§ 287 and 287A, resisting arrest, and assault and battery upon an officer. On February 7, 1989, the court stayed the entry of judgment against Hamby pursuant to Code, Article 27, § 641. Hamby was placed on five years' probation and required, as a condition of probation, to serve 200 hours of community service, and to participate in a program established by Richard Vincent, Director of Lawyer Counseling Services of the Maryland State Bar Association.
 Judge Duckett found from the evidence that Hamby had attended an in-patient treatment program for alcohol abuse in 1983. The evidence further showed that Hamby began injecting cocaine at age 16; and "had tried everything including heroin, methadone, LSD and marijuana." Judge Duckett found, and Hamby acknowledged, that he was addicted to the use of cocaine and was a recovering alcoholic.
 Judge Duckett concluded that Hamby had violated Rule 8.4(b) and (d). He said that the evidence was uncontradicted that Hamby "has embarked [upon] and is continuing an energetic seven day a week remedial program regarding his obvious impairment and abuse of controlled dangerous substances"; that the remedial program "includes Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings on a daily basis, weekly sessions with Dr. Joseph Chambers, a psychiatrist, and additional weekly meetings with Richard B. Vincent."
 Bar Counsel took no exceptions to Judge Duckett's findings. Pointing to Hamby's long history of criminal involvement with numerous controlled dangerous substances, he suggests that Hamby's use of cocaine was in its most potent and abhorrent form  intravenous injection. Moreover, Bar Counsel invites our attention to the fact that Hamby displayed "an outrageous disregard for the duties and authority of the police officer" who arrested him. Bar Counsel urges that a one year suspension from the practice of law would be an appropriate sanction for Hamby's misconduct, with reinstatement being conditioned upon Hamby's continuing treatment under the supervision of Mr. Vincent, and total abstinence from all mood influencing substances.
 Hamby excepted to that part of Judge Duckett's findings that he had violated Rule 8.4(d). He did so on the ground that he was not properly charged by Bar Counsel with violating this rule because the Review Board did not specify that Bar Counsel should file this charge, as required by Rule BV9 (a).
 On the matter of sanction, Hamby states that since the day after his arrest in 1987, he has maintained daily contact with Mr. Vincent and fulfilled all of Vincent's stringent requirements for the rehabilitation of chemically dependent attorneys. Hamby says that since his arrest, he has remained abstinent from drugs and alcohol; that he has maintained daily contact with Mr. Vincent; that he has performed almost 300 hours of community service; that he has submitted to random tests for drugs and alcohol, all of which have been negative; that he has and continues to undergo therapy on a weekly basis with Dr. Chambers; and that he continues to attend and participate actively in self-help recovery groups such as Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous. Hamby further states that he is actively practicing law as a full-time sole practitioner, and has completed over 40 hours of continuing legal education during the past two years. Under these circumstances, and because he has evidenced, for more than three years since his arrest, that he "will do everything necessary to recover from chemical dependency," Hamby suggests that he be allowed to continue to practice law, subject only to the continued supervision of Mr. Vincent (which is already a condition of his probation until 1994).
 Before us, Hamby's counsel repeatedly stressed that Hamby has fully rehabilitated himself from the scourge of controlled dangerous substances and alcohol and that a suspension from practice would not serve the public interest. At our request, Mr. Vincent addressed the Court during oral argument of Hamby's exceptions. He said that Hamby has participated to the fullest degree in the vigorous rehabilitation program prescribed by him and that he is now totally drug free and abstinent from alcohol. Vincent confirmed his testimony at the hearing before Judge Duckett that five years of continuous abstinence from drugs and alcohol marks the point at which continual abstinence is the norm for people recovering from chemical dependency.
 There is no merit to Hamby's exception to Judge Duckett's findings. Rule BV9 a specifies that charges against an attorney "shall be filed by the Bar Counsel acting at the direction of the Review Board." That Bar Counsel charged Hamby with violations of Rule 8.4(b) and (d) does not violate this rule; the charges were plainly related and within the authority vested in Bar Counsel under the Rule.
 The purpose of disciplinary proceedings against an attorney is to protect the public rather than to punish the erring attorney. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Kolodner, 316 Md. 203, 557 A.2d 1332 (1989); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Kahn, 290 Md. 654, 431 A.2d 1336 (1981). In considering the protection of the public, the severity of the sanction to be imposed depends upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Proctor, 309 Md. 412, 524 A.2d 773 (1987). In this regard, we have said time and again that a court has the duty, since attorneys are its officers, to insist upon the maintenance of the integrity of the Bar and to prevent transgressions of an individual lawyer from bringing its image into disrepute. Maryland St. Bar Ass'n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 318 A.2d 811 (1974). Thus, Hamby is wrong in his perception that the imposition of a disciplinary sanction upon him will not further the public interest. On the contrary, the imposition of a sanction for misconduct does protect the public interest because it demonstrates to members of the legal profession the type of conduct which will not be tolerated. See Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Kerpelman, 288 Md. 341, 420 A.2d 940 (1980); Maryland St. Bar Ass'n v. Callanan, 271 Md. 554, 318 A.2d 809 (1974).
 We share Bar Counsel's assessment of the seriousness of Hamby's misconduct. We are also impressed by Hamby's progress in rehabilitating himself from drug and alcohol addiction, as so forcefully related to us by Mr. Vincent. Nevertheless, we shall suspend Hamby from the practice of law indefinitely, with the right to apply for reinstatement after ninety days from the filing of this opinion, if Hamby agrees to comply with the following conditions:
 1) He shall remain abstinent from alcohol and controlled dangerous substances, and participate in such activities as may be prescribed for him by the Director of the Lawyers' Counseling Service of the Maryland State Bar Association, including his attendance at meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
 2) Prior to the termination of his indefinite suspension, Hamby shall pay all costs of these proceedings.
 These conditions are subject to further order of the Court. A breach of any of these conditions, should Hamby agree to them, will constitute grounds for the renewal of his indefinite suspension.
 IT IS SO ORDERED. RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF TRANSCRIPTS PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE BV15 c FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST RUBEN IRVIN HAMBY.


text:
Ardisia venosissima (Ruiz & Pav.) J.F.Macbr. – gatunek roślin z rodziny pierwiosnkowatych (Primulaceae). Występuje naturalnie w Meksyku, Belize, Gwatemali, Salwadorze, Hondurasie, Nikaragui, Kostaryce, Panamie, Kolumbii, Wenezueli oraz Peru.
 Morfologia
 Pokrój Zimozielony krzew.
 Liście Blaszka liściowa ma lancetowaty kształt. Mierzy 9–23,5 cm długości oraz 4 cm szerokości, jest całobrzega, ma ostrokątną nasadę i spiczasty wierzchołek. Ogonek liściowy jest nagi i ma 5 mm długości.
 Zobacz też
 Lista gatunków z rodzaju ardizja
 Przypisy
 Pierwiosnkowate