What legal reasons can be used to reject renewal of a BD?

[N_C_P_de_Gloucester]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am based at Departamento de Física, Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal. I am hosted by the institution LIP (Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Delegação de Coimbra). I am funded by a bursary ("bolsa" in Portuguese) from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT).

Renewal of this bursary is due soon (and I am reliant on it to stay alive), but an essential step for a renewal is for the host institution to accept to having it renewed, and unfortunately on Monday 22nd October 2012 someone who is affiliated with the host institution warned me (but without threatening) that if I do not immediately cancel a court case (in which I am suing a third party which is not any host institution nor the Department nor the University) then allegedly resulting "friction" for the host institution might result in the host institution to reject renewing this bursary.

This cannot be legal.

However, what (apparently) legal reasons could be used to deprive me of a renewal and how can I ensure that such excuses will not be usable against me? I do not plan to cancel the aforementioned court case: were I to cancel (or lose) it, then I could be sued. I am in the right.

The first time that the host institution mentioned that it opposes this court case was on Monday 22nd October 2012 even though I had informed it in a previous year that I would be suing in this court case and I started the paperwork for this court case before 2012.

Yours faithfully,
Paul Colin Gloster

[spca]

Hi.
If your host institution evaluates negatively your work, your grant can be cancelled.
Of course, you can always sue them again saying that this only happened because of the previous court case...
Unfortunately you already have some experience with Portuguese courts, and things are many times not so speedy...
I think that the regulation parts concerning cancelling are:
http://www.fct.pt/apoios/bolsas/regulamento.phtml.en

Article 32 – Failure to achieve objectives

1. A grant recipient who does not achieve the primary objectives set forth in the approved plan of work, or one whose grant is canceled due to a serious breach of duties for reasons imputable to him/her, may, depending on the circumstances of each specific case, be obliged to repay all or part of the allowances that he/she has received.
2. For the due purposes of what is stated in number 3 of Article 18 of the Scientific Research Grant Recipient Statute, approved by Law 40/2004, of 18 August, acceptance by FCT of the grant holder’s renunciation, is dependent on the submission and on the approval, by FCT, of the full activity report, undersigned by the grant holder, by his/her advisor, and the host institution.

Article 33 – Cancellation of the grant

1. The grant may be canceled as a result of an inspection sponsored by FCT after review of the information provided by the grant recipient, the scientific advisor or the person responsible for the applicant’s work or by the host institution.
2. A negative evaluation of a doctoral grant holder’s performance by the host institution and the scientific advisor will, as a rule, imply the termination of the grant after FCT conducts a hearing of the grant holder.
3. A negative evaluation of a post-doctoral grant holder’s performance by the host institution and the research supervisor will, as a rule, imply the termination of the grant after FCT conducts a hearing of the grant holder, except in the case of transfer to another scientific institution and through a written justified independent statement, supporting that transfer.
4. In addition to the reasons expressly set forth in these regulations, any serious or repeated breach of the duties listed in these regulations and in the Scientific Research Grant Recipient Statute, approved by Law 40/2004, of 18 August 2004, on the part of the grant recipient shall lead to cancellation of the grant, and the grant recipient may, depending on the individual case, be obliged to repay all or part of the allowances that were received.

[N_C_P_de_Gloucester]

"Hi.
If your host institution evaluates negatively your work, your grant can be cancelled.
Of course, you can always sue them again saying that this only happened because of the previous court case...
Unfortunately you already have some experience with Portuguese courts, and things are many times not so speedy...
I think that the regulation parts concerning cancelling are:
http://www.fct.pt/apoios/bolsas/regulamento.phtml.en

Article 32 – Failure to achieve objectives

1. A grant recipient who does not achieve the primary objectives set forth in the approved plan of work, or one whose grant is canceled due to a serious breach of duties for reasons imputable to him/her, may, depending on the circumstances of each specific case, be obliged to repay all or part of the allowances that he/she has received.
2. For the due purposes of what is stated in number 3 of Article 18 of the Scientific Research Grant Recipient Statute, approved by Law 40/2004, of 18 August, acceptance by FCT of the grant holder’s renunciation, is dependent on the submission and on the approval, by FCT, of the full activity report, undersigned by the grant holder, by his/her advisor, and the host institution.

Article 33 – Cancellation of the grant

1. The grant may be canceled as a result of an inspection sponsored by FCT after review of the information provided by the grant recipient, the scientific advisor or the person responsible for the applicant’s work or by the host institution.
2. A negative evaluation of a doctoral grant holder’s performance by the host institution and the scientific advisor will, as a rule, imply the termination of the grant after FCT conducts a hearing of the grant holder.
3. A negative evaluation of a post-doctoral grant holder’s performance by the host institution and the research supervisor will, as a rule, imply the termination of the grant after FCT conducts a hearing of the grant holder, except in the case of transfer to another scientific institution and through a written justified independent statement, supporting that transfer.
4. In addition to the reasons expressly set forth in these regulations, any serious or repeated breach of the duties listed in these regulations and in the Scientific Research Grant Recipient Statute, approved by Law 40/2004, of 18 August 2004, on the part of the grant recipient shall lead to cancellation of the grant, and the grant recipient may, depending on the individual case, be obliged to repay all or part of the allowances that were received."

Hi:

Neither the host institution nor the supervisor has criticized the work (not in this year and not in any earlier year). However, I am aware that in Canada repeatedly good evaluations might be followed by unethical ejection (by Ellen Larsen of the University of Toronto) of a victimized Ph.D. student (Michael Pyshnov): HTTP://WWW.UniversityTorontoFraud.com :

"[. . .]

[. . .] our Departmental Graduate Committee ranked him 1st of 7 applicants for [the highest scholarship in Canada] [. . .]

[. . .]"

I hope that does not happen in Portugal!

However, I want to avoid a lame excuse containing a supposedly negative evaluation.

"Hi.
If your host institution evaluates negatively your work, your grant can be cancelled.
Of course, you can always sue them again saying that this only happened because of the previous court case...
[. . .]"

No! The aforementioned court case does not involve the host institution. The host institution was good to me and I do not want to sue it, and I do not want the host institution to interfere with a court case which does not involve the host institution.

Yours sincerely,
Paul Colin Gloster

[spca]

Of course, declaring to FCT that your work was not good when this is not the case, just for "punishment" for the other court case, would be quite unethical.
How likely this is to happen will certainly depend on the ethics of the head of your department, eventually on your relationship with him/her, and on the quality of your work, especially how much work you presented (papers, communications...).
I hope this doesn't happen.
All the best.

[DC]

Hi,

In order to renew the BD you will need to present evaluation documents from your supervisor and host institution to the FCT. If their evaluation is negative you can have problems renewing the scholarship. The best way is to have some kind of proof or result of your work (published papers, etc..) made in the context of the scholarship. In this way, even if one (or the two) evaluation documents from your supervisor and host institution is negative, you can rebute them.

Good luck!

[N_C_P_de_Gloucester]

DC: Thank you for this advice.

[N_C_P_de_Gloucester]

Dear all,

Thank you everyone who replied.

I do not technically have a renewal yet, but I was given an interim payment last week by the host institution.

This is not perfect, but it could have been worse.

Thank you for your concern.