Slashdot Mirror
NSF Accused of Misuse of Funds In Giant Ecological Project
An anonymous reader writes: The National Science Foundation (NSF) and a contractor have been accused by both an audit and by Congress of a significant misuse of funds in a major ecological monitoring project costing almost a half a billion dollars. From the article: "With a construction budget of $433.7 million, NEON is planned to consist of 106 sites across the United States. Arrays of sensors at each site will monitor climate change and human impacts for 30 years, building an unprecedented continental-scale data set. Although some initially doubted its merits, the allure of big-data ecology eventually won over most scientists.
But a 2011 audit of the project's proposed construction budget stalled three times when, according to the independent Defense Contract Audit Agency, NEON's accounting proved so poor that the review could not be completed. Eventually, DCAA issued an adverse ruling, concluding that nearly 36% of NEON's budget proposal was questionable or undocumented.
When the NSF green-lit the project, the agency's inspector-general ordered the audit released on 24 November, which found unallowable expenses including a $25,000 winter holiday party, $11,000 to provide coffee for employees, $3,000 for board-of-directors dinners that included alcohol, $3,000 for t-shirts and other clothes, $83,000 for "business development" and $112,000 for lobbying."
But a 2011 audit of the project's proposed construction budget stalled three times when, according to the independent Defense Contract Audit Agency, NEON's accounting proved so poor that the review could not be completed. Eventually, DCAA issued an adverse ruling, concluding that nearly 36% of NEON's budget proposal was questionable or undocumented.
When the NSF green-lit the project, the agency's inspector-general ordered the audit released on 24 November, which found unallowable expenses including a $25,000 winter holiday party, $11,000 to provide coffee for employees, $3,000 for board-of-directors dinners that included alcohol, $3,000 for t-shirts and other clothes, $83,000 for "business development" and $112,000 for lobbying."
Every University, business and organization that receives grants has overhead rates. These vary from reasonable to ridiculous based on the organization.
These overhead funds then typically go into a larger, not grant specific, fund that is fungible. The spending out of that fund is then restricted not by grant guidelines, but by the general rules of the institution. Usually that is still somewhat restricted at a University, for example, that usually won't allow alcohol. However, businesses receiving grants generally have fewer restrictions.
If you want to look at how overhead is used out of those general funds, I'm certain you will find this at any recipient organization. I am in fact surprised this is all they found. The fact that they are only looking at NSF and focusing on politically controversial topics for their specific party is very suspect. Should we start looking at how defense contractors spend all of their overhead for DARPA awards? Would they even share that information like NEON did?
Our company pays for employee coffee. We have coffee machines in every breakroom with coffee and cream and sugar available. It has been found to increase productivity and reduce the number of coffee breaks that employees take. $11,000 for coffee seems awfully low, honestly.
Really... is this the best they can come up with???
Wow, at least read the summary, quote:
[the auditor] DCAA issued an adverse ruling, concluding that nearly 36% of NEON's budget proposal was questionable or undocumented
You somehow ignored the problem of 36% and somehow focused on $11,000. You should think long and hard about how that happened, because a cognitive bias like that can cause serious problems in the future.
One thing that can help is, when you see an article, if you agree with it, focus on trying to find problems with it. If you disagree with it, focus on things that might be true in the article. Taking the role of an adversary is a technique to help you see more clearly (and you really need help, and I'm saying that based on everything you missed in the summary).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."