Date: 31 Mar 2005 22:01:44 -0000
Message-ID: <20050331220144.82519.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Automatic-Legal-Notices: See http://cr.yp.to/mailcopyright.html.
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@math.uic.edu>
To: "Williamson, Donna" <DonnaW@UIllinois.edu>
Subject: Re: Disclosure of economic interest
References: <568759DC4C96A04492F66C28BBD18032AD593B@lcmail1.ui.uillinois.edu>


Thanks for your message. Before I take you up on your offer, I'd like to
make sure that I understand exactly what you're saying.


1. You're saying that 5 ILCS 420/4A-101(f)(2) includes, as a rule,
principal investigators successfully proposing research grants of $5000
or more?


2. This is not because of any recent change: you're saying that the
university erred by not asking all these PIs for statements of economic
interest before this year, and that NIU et al. are continuing to err by
not collecting those statements from all their PIs this year?


3. Specifically: You're saying that, as a rule, principal investigators
successfully proposing research grants of $5000 or more are ``employees
who have direct responsibility for the formulation of contracts entered
into by the State in the amount of $5000 or more''?

The rest of this message assumes that I'm correctly understanding the
rule, and asks for clarification of four details of how you arrived at
the rule.


4. Regarding the phrase ``contracts entered into by the State in the
amount of $5000 or more'' in the ethics law: You're construing this
phrase to include _grants to the state_ of $5000 or more, and not just
expenditures of $5000 or more _by_ the state?

For example, you're saying that a $100000 NSF grant to UIC is a contract
between NSF and UIC, and that $100000 is over $5000, so the grant is a
``contract entered into by the State in the amount of $5000 or more''?


5. Regarding the phrase ``employees who have responsibility for the
formulation of contracts'' in the law: You're saying that this phrase
includes any employees who _do_ formulate a contract, whether or not
that's one of their responsibilities as a state employee?


6. Regarding the phrase ``responsibility for the formulation of
contracts'' in the law: You're saying that anyone who proposes terms
that are later cited in a grant is ``formulating a contract,'' and
therefore has ``responsibility for the formulation of contracts''?

For example, if NSF awards a $100000 grant to UIC pursuant to NSF's
Grant Conditions, then whoever proposed the $100000 number has
``responsibility for the formulation of'' the grant contract?

Similarly, if a student pays the university for rent of room 382, then
whoever supplied the number 382 has ``responsibility for the formulation
of'' the rental contract?

Similarly, if a graduate student helps write a grant budget, the
graduate student has ``responsibility for the formulation of'' the grant
contract?

If, on the other hand, graduate students and co-PIs and substitute PIs
and so on were _not_ involved in writing the grant budget, then their
mere support under the grant does not trigger 5 ILCS 420/4A-101(f)(2)?


7. Finally, regarding the word ``direct'' in the law: You're saying that
a PI has not only ``responsibility for the formulation'' of the budget,
but ``direct responsibility for the formulation'' of the budget, and
therefore ``direct responsibility for the formulation of contracts''?

As I'm sure you're aware, after a PI drafts a budget, the budget is
reviewed and generally modified (and conceivably rejected) by several
levels of university administration, culminating with the Office of
Research Services. ORS then submits their final budget as a proposal to
the granting agency.

You're saying that, despite this active rewriting by the university
personnel hired to administer grant proposals, it's actually the PI who
has ``direct responsibility for the formulation of contracts''?


---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago