Blog Viewer

Authored by:
Zoya Davis-Hamilton
Associate Vice Provost for Research Administration and Development
Tufts University

Sarah Marina
Assistant Director for Research Administration and Development
Tufts University

Conceptualized as the sister column to The Pulse, Background Noise is a column devoted to conceptual ideas of interest to the research administration community. It is written by Zoya Davis-Hamilton, Associate Vice Provost, and Sarah Marina, Assistant Director, both of Research Administration and Development at Tufts University. Look for a new column in The Catalyst every few months, whenever an idea pops into our heads, and feel free to send us ideas to feature in future columns at zoya.hamilton@tufts.edu and sarah.marina@tufts.edu.

Who Holds Responsibility and Authority?

The topic of signature authority for sponsored programs seems to be revisited by the research administration community cyclically. The questions of who signs off on proposals, on awards, and on invoices is often discussed. These questions are seemingly never settled. We saw one of such discussions on RESADM-L listserv not long ago and thought we would offer our thoughts on the subject in this column.

In most institutions—our university among those—the bylaws or the board designate the head of the organization, such as president, an authorized signatory of “all duly authorized contracts, deeds, and other instruments.” Understanding that the head of the organization may not always have the ability to sign all documentation, most institutions also have in place a mechanism for delegating the signature authority. Knowing that it is rarely the head of the institution who acts as signatory, the question then becomes how far down the chain of command to delegate?

Commonly, the signature authority is delegated to positions such as the vice provost, director of sponsored programs, or their equivalent. In increasingly busy research institutions, these roles are often also quite busy, leading to the potential of authorizing senior staff in sponsored programs unit(s) as signing officials. Institutions often decide to delegate to more junior employees, and add more signatories, due to increasing size and complexity of their operation, helping to avoid bottlenecks and leverage expertise.

We contend that equally important considerations when deciding where to assign signing authority are the issues of value added and responsibility. We argue that authority to affix one’s signature to the document should be bestowed on the person that reviewed it. As a part of their work responsibilities and using their professional knowledge, this person has determined that it is okay for the institution to proceed with the action or the arrangement outlined in the document. We believe that if staff is experienced enough that they can make this determination and feel comfortable doing so, they should be in a position to sign the relevant proposals, awards, or reports. Different than giving authority because of institutional needs, this gives authority based on a person’s abilities.

We further believe that officials that do not add value to the review process should not be part of the approval process. Thresholds and limits on signing authority should be predicated on the nature of input that a higher ranked individual would provide to the review, whether it is placing the action in a larger context or doing an extra check of the reported information. Absent value added, signature authority should reside with the person responsible for the document. Such alignment of authority and responsibility leads to better staff engagement, growth in professional sills, and cultivates ownership of tasks.