Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Clarification on Ramah Indirect Cost Settlement Post

We got this clarification of yesterday's blog from Michael Gross, attorney for the tribes in the Ramah Indirect Cost class action suit. Gross writes:

I'd like to correct a misstatement about the Third Ramah Settlement in your latest Blog:
The latest blog says: "In order to benefit from the settlement, tribes of all sizes will need to prepare multiple indirect cost rate proposals." This is not correct. No one will have to prepare multiple indirect cost rate proposals to benefit from the settlement. They will merely have to opt for a special ISDA self-determination rate or rates (one for BIA and one for IHS). The option is their choice; no one will be forced to use it.
Only if tribes want to use a variant of the special rates - a so-called hybrid rate - will some additional paper work be required. The hybrid will allow certain indirect costs to be shifted to the special ISDA rate(s) if justification to show disproportionate benefits exists. Otherwise, the special rates will operate by dividing the single indirect cost pool as presently negotiated into allocations for special and non-ISDA rates based on programs' proportions in the base. Carryforwards for each rate will then be instituted which will, we expect, gradually increase special ISDA rates. Otherwise, special rates add virtually no new requirements to the present system.
Moreover, for those using fixed with carryforward rates, there are benefits from the settlement regardless whether a class member opts for special rates or not. These are explained on the Class Website: www.RNCSETTLEMENT.COM.