Amended Applications: To speed the funding of meritorious science and minimize reviewer burden: •As of January 25, 2009, all original new applications (i.e., never submitted) and competing renewal applications will be permitted only a single amendment (A1). (A1)
View full slide show




Guidelines for Determining “arm’s length” Reviewers: Reviewer Qualifications Details Is this reviewer a current or former mentor/mentee? Former preceptors, thesis advisors, lab directors, or other industry experts that have had a role in your training and development are NOT considered arm’s-length. Former students, and/or post-graduate trainees are NOT considered arm’s-length. Is the reviewer from your former institution and/or region? In general, reviewers should NOT be from your former institution, regardless of professional relationship. Former faculty members, Chairs, Deans and/or colleagues who directly interacted with you in the course of your duties at your former institution(s) are NOT considered arm’s-length. Candidates should NOT list more than one reviewer from the same institution. Is this reviewer a current or former supervisor? Former lab directors, Chairs, Deans that directly supervised your duties and/or training at other institutions are NOT considered arm’s-length. Is this reviewer a close collaborator? If the reviewer has collaborated in a grant, published or been a co-applicant with you, within the last five years, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s- length. Beyond that five year window, the reviewer may or may not be neutral depending on the nature of the relationship. Is this reviewer a close personal friend or a relative? If the reviewer has maintained a long-standing relationship that has extended beyond professional meetings or occasional communications, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s-length. 26
View full slide show




Guidelines for Determining “arm’s length” Reviewers: Reviewer Qualifications Details Is this reviewer a current or former mentor/mentee? Former preceptors, thesis advisors, lab directors, or other industry experts that have had a role in your training and development are NOT considered arm’s-length. Former students, and/or post-graduate trainees are NOT considered arm’s-length. Is the reviewer from your former institutions and/or regions? In general, reviewers should NOT be from your former institutions, regardless of professional relationship. Former faculty members, Chairs, Deans and/or colleagues who directly interacted with you in the course of your duties at your former institutions are NOT considered arm’s-length. Candidates should NOT list more than one reviewer from the same institution. Is this reviewer a current or former supervisor? Former lab directors, Chairs, Deans that directly supervised your duties and/or training at other institutions are NOT considered arm’s-length. Is this reviewer a close collaborator? If the reviewer has collaborated in a grant, published or been a co-applicant with you, within the last five years, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s- length. Beyond that five year window, the reviewer may or may not be neutral depending on the nature of the relationship. Is this reviewer a close personal friend or a relative? If the reviewer has maintained a long-standing relationship that has extended beyond professional meetings or occasional communications, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s-length. 26
View full slide show




Definitions NEW Contract: The Original Contract submitted/entered into CMTS will automatically have a CMTS contract number assigned (AGRXXXXXXXXXXXX). When/if the need arises to “Renew” or “Amend” an existing CMTS Contract it is imperative that you search for the existing Contract in CMTS and utilize the Amend/Renew function. The use of the existing CMTS AGR Contract Number is needed to create a “connection” to any previous versions of the contract. DO NOT create a New Contract when you need to Renew or Amend a current contract. RENEWAL of Contract: This type of contract is considered “Renewable” and typically contains contract language that states the “contract may be renewed”. Renewal Contracts MUST meet the following criteria: • Original contract term has or will expire; the contract period/term limit re-submitted with a “NEW term limit/begin-end date” for a new contract period, (e.g., scope, expenses, etc., may remain the same or change). If you are making changes in an “open/active” contract period, refer to “Amend Contract.” AMENDMENT of Contract: During the course of a current/open/active contract TERM, you may find it necessary to make amendments to a contract in CMTS. This action may be needed either due to your departmental decision OR as requested by your contracting partner. For purposes of the structure of CMTS; we are defining “Amendment” as the need to Amend, Alter, Change, Correct, Modify, and/or Revise – during a current contract term. This may also include “Amendment to extend Date/Term” if you process an Amendment before the expiration of the contract. CMTS will assign Amendment # suffix once you Save/Submit which will appear in the Contract Listing queue as Amendment 1 and AGRXXXXXXXXXXXXX [w/alpha letter suffix]. Special Note: For those who have Revenue State of AR Professional/Consultant Services Contracts with other AR state agencies [e.g. DHS, ADH, AMHC, Blind/Deaf Schools, etc.] you know “any” action done after the execution of the “Original PCS Contract” is done as an “Amendment” and assigned an Amendment #. This may present confusion as you receive these from state agencies and prepare for CMTS. For purposes of the CMTS structure, if the PCS Contract presented is acceptable and does not require negotiations that would cause the Contract to expire before it can be finalized, and you are simply renewing for an additional fiscal or biennium period, you would enter into CMTS as a RENEWAL. If you need to create a short-term Contract extension, allowing time to resolve negotiations, you would enter into CMTS as an 10/27/2016 AMENDMENT.
View full slide show




8.20B List and summarize the Bill of Rights. Amendment 1. Amendment 6. Amendment 2. Amendment 7. Amendment 3. Amendment 8. Amendment 4. Amendment 9. Amendment 5. Amendment 10.
View full slide show




Obtaining a Smooth Instance: Machine Smoothing speed = 1 Group 0: (total speed 1) speed = 1 speed = 2/3 Group 1: speed = 1/2 speed = 1/2 (total speed 2) speed = 1/2 Machine Smoothing Lemma: Anyspeed schedule on the smooth instance can = 1/2 speed = 1/2 be replicated on the original instance with constant change in Group 2: speed = 2/5 makespan, and vice-versa. speed = 2/5 speed = 2/5 speed = 1/4 (each) speed = 1/3 speed = 1/3 speed = 1/3 (total speed 4) • Group machines so that total speed increases exponentially. • Replace machines with identical machines with (roughly) same total speed. Online Vector Scheduling 61
View full slide show




Obtaining a Smooth Instance: Machine Smoothing speed = 1 Group 0: (total speed 1) speed = 1 speed = 2/3 Group 1: speed = 1/2 speed = 1/2 (total speed 2) speed = 1/2 speed = 1/2 speed = 2/5 speed = 1/2 Group 2: speed = 2/5 speed = 2/5 speed = 1/4 (each) speed = 1/3 speed = 1/3 speed = 1/3 (total speed 4) • Group machines so that total speed increases exponentially. • Replace machines with identical machines with (roughly) same total speed. Online Vector Scheduling 60
View full slide show




Obtaining a Smooth Instance: Machine Smoothing speed = 1 Group 0: (total speed 1) speed = 1 speed = 2/3 Group 1: speed = 1/2 speed = 1/2 (total speed 2) speed = 1/2 speed = 1/2 speed = 1/2 speed = 2/5 speed = 2/5 speed = 2/5 speed = 1/3 speed = 1/3 speed = 1/3 • Group machines so that total speed increases exponentially. • Replace machines with identical machines with (roughly) same total speed. Online Vector Scheduling 59
View full slide show




New FOAs for Investigator-Initiated Phase II and Above Multi-site Clinical Trials (PAR-16-300 and PAR-16-301) Frequently Asked Questions January 18, 2017 • https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/research/funding/new-foas-investigator • -initiated-phase-ii-and-above-multi-site-clinical-trials-par-16300-and-par-16 The NIH requirement for a single IRB on studies it funds applies to all competing grant applications (new, renewal, revision, or resubmission) with receipt dates on or after May 25, 2017.   • Ongoing, non-competing awards will not be expected to comply with this policy until the grantee submits a competing renewal application.  The NHLBI FOAs for multi-site clinical trials will be updated in the future to reflect the new requirement and its effective date.  SIREN • In the meantime, applicants may consider the use of a single
View full slide show




UCF Team 2   Tace Tace Crouse Crouse –coordinator of UCF’s Fifth-Year Report Report and and peer peer reviewer reviewer   Diane Diane Chase – current SACSCOC SACSCOC liaison liaison for for UCF UCF and and peer peer reviewer reviewer   Heidi Heidi Watt Watt –– member member of of UCF UCF Fifth-Year Fifth-Year Report leadership team team and and manages manages on-going on-going SACSCOC SACSCOC compliance compliance activities activities   Denise Denise Young – former former SACSCOC SACSCOC liaison liaison for UCF UCF and and peer peer reviewer reviewer (including (including Fifth-Year Fifth-Year reports) reports)
View full slide show




The Effects of Presumptions: Jury Instructions and Burden of Proof A presumption has very limited, but significant, effects. o First, is what the jury is told about the presumption. o Second, is the effect on the burden of proof in the case. The burden of proof has two elements: (1) the burden of producing evidence (production burden) and (2) the burden of persuading the trier of fact (persuasion burden). © 2011 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
View full slide show




2009-2010 – Math and Science Misassigned Teachers Flathead HS– Science (2,4) Cayuse Prairie–Math (1) Polson 7-8– Science (2) Charlo HS–Science (2) Corvallis HS-Science (3) Hot Springs HS-Math (6) Big Sandy HS–Science (2) Hays Lodge Pole HS–Science (2) Browning HS–Math (2) Cut Bank HS–Science (6) Augusta HS-Science (1,1) Sunburst HS-Science (1) Richey HS–Science (1,1) Circle HS-Science (2) Frontier School, 7-8-Math (2,2) Wolf Point HS-Science (1) Brockton HS-Science (7) Brockton HS-Math (2) Glasgow 7-8,HS-Math (4,6) () Number of Periods/FT LaMotte 7-8-Math (1) Harrison HS-Science (2) Roy 7-8, HS-Science (2,4) Absarokee HS-Science (2) Harlowton HS-Science (4,1) Meadowlark-Billings-Math (FT)
View full slide show




Binder One: External Reviewer Letters •• •• •• •• •• •• Are Are needed needed for for only only the the year year you you are are going going up up for for promotion promotion and/or and/or tenure tenure The The applicant applicant and and department department head head generally generally decide decide on on reviewers reviewers together together Dean Dean approves approves final final list list of of external external reviewers reviewers MUST MUST be be from from an an AACSB-accredited AACSB-accredited school school Must Must at at least least hold hold the the rank rank you you are are seeking seeking Department Department heads heads do do the the ask ask and and monitor monitor the the responses. responses. Need Need 3-5 3-5 external external letters letters of of support. support. Important: Important: It It is is the the Department Department Head’s Head’s responsibility responsibility to to monitor monitor receipt receipt and and find find replacements replacements if if someone someone doesn’t doesn’t come come through. through. •• External External reviewer reviewer letters letters are are inserted inserted into into the the packet packet by by the the DH DH prior prior to to dossier dossier going going to to department department personnel personnel committee committee and and remain remain confidential confidential until until the the initial initial recommendation recommendation by by the the Provost. Provost. Letters Letters are are removed removed from from the the packet packet prior prior to to the the packet packet being being returned returned to to the the College. College. •• External External reviewer reviewer letters letters are are returned returned to to the the Dean’s Dean’s office office where where they they become become aa part part of of the the applicant’s applicant’s personnel personnel file file and and can can be be reviewed reviewed upon upon request request
View full slide show




SF424 (R&R)—A Cover Component: A Few Data Issues • Item 8, Type of Application– New is an application submitted for the first time – Resubmission a revised or amended application to address reviewer feedback – Renewal Competing for additional years of funding to continue project. – Continuation NIH does not use SF424 R&R continuation applications. – Revision request for additional funds to expand scope • Item 13, Congressional District for applicant organization only 11
View full slide show




Other Procedural Questions • • Can a state that has ratified a proposed amendment rescind (take back) its ratification (before the amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and incorporated into the Constitution)? Is there (or should there be) some requirement for contemporaneity in the amendment process, such that an amendment must be proposed and ratified within in relatively short period of time? – Amendment 27 -- No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. • Proposed in 1789, ratified in 1992. – This was one of twelve amendments proposed by Congress in 1789 to fulfill the promise made by the Federalist advocates of the Constitution that, if the Constitution were ratified, its amending procedure would be used promptly to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. – Ten were quickly ratified by the states and are now known as the Bill of Rights, one (dealing the "ratio of representation" for the House of Representatives) was never ratified, and the last became the 27th Amendment more than 200 years after being proposed by Congress.
View full slide show