Getting paid by the U but working for a nonprofit - is this a type of misconduct

[Dismal]

My colleagues and I are wondering if this is a type of misconduct and what type it would be if an anonymous someone wanted to make a complaint to the proper U office?

Imagine a senior person, a well-known local leader with a PhD who retires from their main job and through connections gets a job at the U as a non-TT senior researcher.  The job is half time, salary is $100K and (because of the connections with the U prez) gets set up with a $100K annual fund to support their research activities, which involves research on a particular policy X.  This senior person with the sweet gig (just one half semester class to teach a year) also serves on the board of an organization that was created to promote X.   No one really is concerned about any conflict of interest, because a great way to promote the policy X is to do research about its effectiveness.  Seems like you could both work for the U and serve the nonprofit in this way.

But no research ever seems to take place and the research fund gets spent mostly on a personal assistant/secretary and travel to promote policy X.  The public outreach activities (newspaper commentaries, etc.) over five years or longer make repeated reference to evidence supporting policy X.  Ex. "A rigorous evaluation shows strong results for X! " but other experts in this field can't find this evidence.  There actually is an evaluation but hardly a rigorous one - the comparison group doesn't match the treatment group very well and there are no differences in their key outcomes. 

Policy X turns out to be a pretty big deal in policy discussions at the state level.  Big discussion about how much should we spend on X? Or should we spend more money on Y?  Eventually the state legislative audit bureau gets involved and reports that there is no evidence of effectiveness of X.  Then the senior person moves on to just straight out promoting X in many local talks and commentaries without making the disputed claims and still without doing an research on X or encouraging anyone else to do research on X.  The senior person also spends the majority of the $100K research fund on a personal assistant who helps set him up to teach the half semester class but then spends the rest of her time helping him promote X.

Since the mission of the nonprofit is to promote X, and the mission of the U involves teaching, service and outreach (where outreach is defined as sharing, applying and extending knowledge), and research (defined as generating knowledge), it seems clear that these two are getting paid by the U to work for the nonprofit.  There is no knowledge being shared or generated, other than the guy really thinks X is a good idea.

Given that complaints to the Dean about spending so much money on non-evidenced based advocacy have fallen on deaf ears, some of my colleagues believe that in this tough economic times these funds need to be better managed.  But to make a complaint to higher ups, the proper policy violation needs to be cited.

If anyone is still with me, what is the policy violation?  Not academic misconduct.  I've been looking through the U's "policy library" and the policy I am looking for doesn't jump out at me.  Maybe I'm looking in the wrong section.  I need something about misuse of funds - is that it?

BTW, the policy is something to do with disadvantaged people - should we help them this way or that way?  No real ideological divide here except that it is true that Repubs might prefer X because it is cheaper than Y.

[Ruralguy]

Unless you know precisely what the restrictions are on his funds, accusing him publicly is madness. Just critique the work if you wish.

This seems like an MYOB situation to me, unless you know details. Just oppose the work itself and move on.

[polly_mer]

Unless you know precisely what the restrictions are on his funds, accusing him publicly is madness. Just critique the work if you wish.

This seems like an MYOB situation to me, unless you know details. Just oppose the work itself and move on.

Completely agree.

[Katrina Gulliver]

You've given a long narrative of this person's perceived misdeeds: better question is - why do you care? You just trying to throw a spoke in someone's wheel because YOU didn't get a sweet $100k gig?

[Ruralguy]

Well, my point isn't that he isn't a goat. He might be. But I don't see how you prove it without facts about his accounts and such, and making a public stink without facts is just stupid and dangerous (for you!).

[Hibush]

There are several different issues at play here, and it's best not to confound them.



• Local leader is getting a sweet post-retirement gig that involves a pot of money and a platform to run around and be an authority on their pet cause. Meritorious faculty are resentful, and would like that money spent better.
• 
  The university needs to maintain a reputation as being a source of unbiased, research-based knowledge and policy analysis. This person is not meeting those standards while being in a prominent outreach position. Doing so harms the ability of the rest of the university to be effective in its public mission.
• 
  Policy X may be a bad idea, and better research is needed to evaluate that and competing policies against various desired outcomes.

Which one is most important to address?

[Dismal]

The university needs to maintain a reputation as being a source of unbiased, research-based knowledge and policy analysis. This person is not meeting those standards while being in a prominent outreach position. Doing so harms the ability of the rest of the university to be effective in its public mission.

Yes, this is the main complaint, combined with the need to focus more closely now on inappropriate use of money given the really tough economic times that are coming for universities and colleges.

I assume that the MYOB suggestions are made conditional on my statement that faculty have already complained to the Dean.  At the U's I've worked at, there is a code of conduct that indicates that employees are expected to speak up when they see a poor use of funds.  But I can see that since we already complained to the Dean, we have done our duty and can be done.

Also I think that making a claim that someone is working for a nonprofit while getting paid by the state might be taken literally in an "investigation" - and its not like they have offices there with their names on them.

Some of you like ruralguy seem really jaded - why wouldn't tenured folks speak up to address inappropriate use of resources, especially at at time when faculty might be taking 10 or 15% paycuts due to the pandemic.
These comments have been useful!

[polly_mer]

Which one is most important to address?

None of the above as a tenured faculty member in a completely different field.

Anything that isn't true financial malfeasance (e.g., using the money to redo the home kitchen or using the money to buy personal clothing) just looks like petty bickering among academics who are cranky that their pet project wasn't funded with that money.

$100k in an institutional budget is nothing, particularly if X is a topic of interest for the general public and the faculty member involved really is a plausible expert in the relevant field.

<on preview>

Yes, this is the main complaint, combined with the need to focus more closely now on inappropriate use of money given the really tough economic times that are coming for universities and colleges.

Nope, this is academic-level petty based on what you as one individual thinks is more important than this particular aspect of this particular area.

Your complaint is along the lines of "why does biochemistry get a new piece of teaching lab equipment when it would be better to remodel the classrooms that English uses that serve more students?" or vice versa.

If the person isn't saying something blatantly false like injecting bleach to treat coronavirus, then it just looks petty to insist the money is better spent elsewhere.

[Ruralguy]

OK, I might be jaded. But if you have no proof anything, then what are you doing?

But it sounds like you wish to go ahead. If so, then go ahead. I'd be interested to know how this progresses.

[Parasaurolophus]

Contracts at your university might specify the number of hours employees of different sorts, including half-time researchers, can work at other jobs. It hardly seems worth your time, energy, and reputation to raise a stink, however.

Especially since it's a non-profit that's involved. They're probably, strictly speaking, volunteering whatever time they spend there, and getting paid in the form of an honorarium. And their contract probably makes room for the relevant exceptions.

[mahagonny]

I assume that the MYOB suggestions are made conditional on my statement that faculty have already complained to the Dean.  At the U's I've worked at, there is a code of conduct that indicates that employees are expected to speak up when they see a poor use of funds.

All employees or just 'faculty?'

There are plenty of journalists who write  about academia from afar. Perhaps you could tip them off anonymously. If you have some idea how they might respond that is.

[tuxthepenguin]

OK, I might be jaded. But if you have no proof anything, then what are you doing?

But it sounds like you wish to go ahead. If so, then go ahead. I'd be interested to know how this progresses.

This is the correct answer. Ruralguy is no doubt jaded, but that's a different forum thread.

[Dismal]

But it sounds like you wish to go ahead. If so, then go ahead. I'd be interested to know how this progresses.

No, when I said that a formal complaint about working for a nonprofit might require proof that they actually have offices there (they don't), I meant that I realized that a misconduct or ethics complaint doesn't make sense.  So I'm not going ahead on that front.  I do think that the complaint that someone in a high level researcher position (the formal title has the word research in it) isn't doing any research is better handled in an annual faculty review process, which this clout position doesn't have.

We're being ask to suggest cost savings and contrary to polly_mer's comment, no one has suggested that $100k or $200K is  too trivial. I will suggest looking at the use of the $100K annual slush fund - wouldn't it be nice if some of that could be used to support students in the summer.   

[tuxthepenguin]

But it sounds like you wish to go ahead. If so, then go ahead. I'd be interested to know how this progresses.

No, when I said that a formal complaint about working for a nonprofit might require proof that they actually have offices there (they don't), I meant that I realized that a misconduct or ethics complaint doesn't make sense.  So I'm not going ahead on that front.  I do think that the complaint that someone in a high level researcher position (the formal title has the word research in it) isn't doing any research is better handled in an annual faculty review process, which this clout position doesn't have.

We're being ask to suggest cost savings and contrary to polly_mer's comment, no one has suggested that $100k or $200K is  too trivial. I will suggest looking at the use of the $100K annual slush fund - wouldn't it be nice if some of that could be used to support students in the summer.

Your title included "misconduct". This is a statement that his position be eliminated for budgetary reasons.

[Ruralguy]

Or he can simply change his title.