Timeline for Institution refuses reimbursement for grant awarded?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 2020 at 15:20 | comment | added | Voo | @Buffy Sure I have to argue it. But it should stop right at "Here I have written confirmation that I'll be compensated for buying those things". Isn't that the whole point of asking in advance? | |
| Jan 19, 2020 at 15:10 | comment | added | Buffy | @Voo, probably if you don't argue the case then you lose by default. Don't assume this situation is normal or logical. | |
| Jan 19, 2020 at 15:04 | comment | added | Voo | "You need to argue that your interpretation is correct and".. why? If I get written confirmation from someone that I'll be refunded for X, it's ridiculous to argue afterwards that I should've second guessed the person responsible in the first place. | |
| Jan 19, 2020 at 10:12 | comment | added | David Schwartz | If they wanted to say you couldn't buy a computer or buy computer parts, they should have said so. What's the point of them stating a precise and strange rule if they don't want people to obey the strange and precise rule they chose? | |
| Jan 19, 2020 at 8:42 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @Maeher “creatively” perhaps, but what is your basis for the bad faith claim? It seems quite reasonable for a PhD student to not understand the intricacies of funding agency spending rules (which frankly are not easy even for senior faculty to understand), and consequently to interpret a rule such as “does not contain a hard drive” more literally than a more experienced person might. The fact that OP sought, and obtained, reassurance from staff members that the purchase was permitted suggests the opposite of bad faith to me, or at the very least a lack of evidence of bad faith. | |
| Jan 19, 2020 at 6:21 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @MichaelHoffman that’s true for some rules, but I suspect that not for all of them. | |
| Jan 18, 2020 at 19:43 | comment | added | Michael Hoffman | There are definitely many people who understand why certain rules for use of funds are in place that may seem arbitrary to the uninitiated. | |
| Jan 18, 2020 at 12:32 | comment | added | TOOGAM | Joshua: I refer to Karl's comment to your question for a possible reason why. But I suggest you accept the consensus (saying your actions tried to subvert rules/intent) as how people in charge are likely to judge things, even if you don't like it. The "no hard drive" rule was probably not made to allow HD-like things like SSDs on a technicality, but rather to prohibit things like Xerox copiers that may have an internal hard drive (so, to be more restrictive, not to enable a loophole). It isn't clear to us how much authority your advisers are treated with, or how much their word will be honored | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 18:50 | comment | added | Buffy | @DanRomik, while I don't disagree, the people with the money often get to make the rules. Also see: dilbert.com/strip/2020-01-07 | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 18:45 | comment | added | Dan Romik | @JoshuaCalvin funding agencies have Byzantine rules about what can and cannot be covered using their funds. Nobody really understands “why” each rule is in place, so that’s a pointless question to ask. I suggest focusing on whether you were given inaccurate information as a basis for arguing that you should get reimbursed, not on whether the rules make sense. | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 18:29 | comment | added | Jeffrey J Weimer | @JoshuaCalvin Why are PC components not considered as research materials, supplies, or equipment? For reflection, I would ask this: Will the computer parts be used exclusively to perform a specific type of computational analysis that can not be done by any other type of computer that is currently available at your institution in order to generate analytical or empirical results as part of a publication-directed (research) project? When the answer is not an emphatic YES, the computer parts are categorized as (non-research related) general (administrative) supplies. | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 18:20 | comment | added | Maeher | @JoshuaCalvin by your own admission the grant restricts reimbursement to research equipment "that does not contain a hard drive". You very obviously tried to creatively (and I'd argue, in bad faith) get around this by basically buying a PC without a hard drive. This was clearly not the intent of said rule. | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 14:45 | comment | added | Buffy | I sympathize, but can't affect how they think or judge. They need to be convinced, though it may not be possible. | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 14:35 | comment | added | Joshua Calvin | thank you for your answer! I am a PhD student and we are talking about thousands of dollars here (not a serious, but a noticeable financial setback). But why would PC components be not considered research equipment? What is research equipment then? On top of that, I asked them 5 months ago if parts would be covered and they said yes. I further made my financial decisions based on their assurance. | |
| Jan 17, 2020 at 14:26 | history | answered | Buffy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |