Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
Dear Rosemary,
The difference is that auditors, especially with public agencies,
interpret to the letter of the law (pay equally for services
received), not the intent (pay fairly, and get a good deal to stretch
the public resources). That way their behinds are covered should
someone be discovered to have found a means of misdirecting user fees
to their personal benefit, or simply squandering public funds on
unused pre-paid services. By the same logic, the mobile company
contracts would be illegal because most non-teenagers never use all
of the minutes for which they are paying. But, it's 'private sector'
funds, with the right to spend money how they please. Plenty of
other ways the mobile companies are screwing their customers anyway.
Our public agencies spend $10 to reduce the possibility that $1 could
be misspent (unless its in the billions, then you will get away with
it).
Glen
On Jun 2, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Rosemary White wrote:
> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
> Well, this is very interesting, because routinely mobile phone
> contracts are
> "pay in advance". Some contracts require you to pay it out in full
> anyway
> if you quit within a given period - and not just the ones that
> "give" you a
> phone. And even for the landlines here, it's always pay one month in
> advance, and it's certainly before the service has been rendered.
> Maybe
> these types of contracts don't exist in the US? And what about the
> service
> contracts we have on our instruments? That's pay in advance.
>
> Bit off-track, perhaps, but I'm just having a similar wrangle here
> - I need
> the users to think ahead about their microscope time, and figure
> the only
> way to force the issue is to oblige them to budget properly and pay in
> advance.
>
> If only we could change human nature!!!
>
> cheers,
> Rosemary
>
> Dr Rosemary White [log in to unmask]
> CSIRO Plant Industry ph. 02-6246 5475
> GPO Box 1600 fax. 02-6246 5334
> Canberra, ACT 2601
> Australia
>
>
>
>> From: Tina Carvalho <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Confocal Microscopy List <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:31:23 -1000
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: core facility user charges
>>
>> Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>> http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>>
>> We used to have a pre-pay system. Federal auditors came in and
>> praised our
>> record-keeping, noted all the adavantages mentioned below, said it
>> was a
>> great idea, and then said it was completely illegal because paying
>> for
>> services before they are rendered is fraud. Insinuated jail time
>> if we did
>> not agree. So we're back to hourly charges, monthly billings, tons of
>> paperwork, no way to help clients encumber funds for upcoming
>> work, and
>> we're always behind on our pay-in-advance service contracts on our
>> electron microscopes. Be careful what you set up!
>>
>> Aloha,
>> Tina
>>
>>> Instead of "annual" charges I think of trying a Pre-Pay system:
>>> Groups
>>> buy large chunks of usage hours in advance at discounted rates,
>>> hours are
>>> then taken off their credit.
>>> Advantages: reduced paper work with billing, clear hourly
>>> records for
>>> facility management and funding bodies, cheaper rates for users -
>>> and
>>> prepaid money in our account. And it's only one calculation
>>> system for
>>> all charges (hourly & prepaid), so easier to handle.
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> *******
>> * Tina (Weatherby) Carvalho *
>> [log in to unmask] *
>> * Biological Electron Microscope Facility * (808)
>> 956-6251 *
>> * University of Hawaii at Manoa * http://
>> www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/bemf*
>> *********************************************************************
>> *******
>>
|
