The federal government is poised to begin an investigation of possible misuse of federal funds by the University in the construction of a new nutrition center, and has frozen millions of dollars in aid to the project, pending the results of the inquiry.
The Inspector General's Office of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued an internal report questioning Tufts' use of federal funds in constructing the new building, which would house its Center for Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy (CHPNP). Following the agency's findings, Under-Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics Miley Gonzalez suspended further expenditures on the facility pending a comprehensive review of the University's plans.
The USDA report, which is addressed to Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, alleges that Tufts made significant changes to "the configuration and scope of nutrition policy and communications programs that have resulted in a major departure from the project as it was first represented to Congress in 1991." The document also questions the continued validity of the grant in light of former CHPNP Director Dr. Larry Brown's departure from Tufts last June.
Brown, who has since moved his research to Brandeis University, sparked the investigation when he filed a complaint with the USDA alleging that Tufts had diverted federal funds earmarked for the CHPNP to purposes not authorized by Congress.
The original grant proposed to "bring together the social sciences programs of the new Center, now on the Medford campus, with the existing biomedical programs on the Boston campus." Brown interpreted the proposal's wording as referring specifically to social science programs, as well as increased interaction with biomedical researchers. University officials, however, have said that all current CHPNP programs, including those which are more "medical" in nature, are within the scope of the original grant.
Specifically, Brown objected to the University's initial plans to include a "nutritional epidemiology" program in the facility, which he believed to be of a more clinical nature than was intended by the USDA grant.
"Dr. Brown stated that as the project director for the Building and Facilities Program grant he was ordered by the Vice President of Tufts [Steve Manos] to endorse certain changes to the plan that would 'divert or reallocate one-third of the facility space' to other unauthorized purposes,'" the report reads.
"Dr. Brown said he had declined to authorize these changes because he believed they would 'subvert the clear Congressional intent' and preclude the 'use of the facility for the program which Congress funded.'"
The University recently eliminated the nutritional epidemiology program from its proposal. Nevertheless, the Inspector General report called for a full review of the entire program to ensure that it is within the scope of the Congressional grant.
Calling the document a "contradictory report," Manos, Tufts' executive vice president, defended the proposed expenditures and denied allegations that the University tried to hide its plans from the federal government.
"[Brown] objected to certain aspects of the plans," Manos said. "This was a grant to the University, and in the end, the University has to make a decision about the use of its resources.... All of these things have been discussed openly and fairly."
Dean of Tufts' School of Nutrition, Science, and Policy Dr. Irwin Rosenberg yesterday defended the CHPNP's plans.
"The outlay of funds has been frozen until this final review is complete," he said. "The depth and breadth of the program that we're presenting is well within the original intent [of the grant]."
Rosenberg, Manos, and Associate Provost of Research Peggy Newell called the government report a communication between two branches of the USDA and emphasized that it was never intended for distribution outside the agency.
"I personally asked at least three different officials at the USDA for a copy of this report, and was told that this was an internal document that we would never have received," said Newell. "Typically this report would be a starting point within the agency, the program people would go back and forth, and at the end of that process, if they couldn't resolve all of the issues, then they would come to us.... It's a way of placing things on hold."
Newell said she is optimistic that in the end, the USDA will conclude that Tufts' proposed programs are well within the scope of the original grant.
"The USDA will come back to Tufts and will look at the program, and to be honest with you, I think we look forward to the opportunity to lay some of these issues to rest," she said.
While Brown declined official comment on the specifics of the disagreement, he did acknowledge his initial role in the proceedings.
"I am aware of the federal investigation but would really prefer not to comment at this time," he said. Both Newell and Manos denied any implication that Brown's initial objections were stifled by the administration.
"At no point was he ever stopped from airing his views, he had free reign of communication," Newell said. "The last thing the University is in the business of doing is stifling people," Manos added.
The Inspector General has numerous options, including approving Tufts' additional programs, forcing the University to alter their proposals, or transferring the money entirely to Brown's new center at Brandeis, where he has continued work that began at Tufts.
