In the wake of the 700th anniversary of Dante's death in 2021, the MaTELDa project explores the manuscript tradition and exegetical reception of his works. Within the project funded by Italy's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) and carried out at the Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage (DiLBeC) of the University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, the approved proposal provides for €36,811 in gross incentive payments through payroll: €21,408 for the principal investigator, Ciro Perna, and €15,403 for Giulio Sodano, Director of the Department. The University is permitted, but not required, to allocate sums of this magnitude to incentive payments through payroll. It is therefore necessary to establish which activities and results justified this decision.
Sodano is a historian of the early modern period whose research focuses on European courts and aristocracies, sainthood and religious life in southern Italy, particularly from the seventeenth to the eighteenth centuries. He has reported 545 hours of work, compared with 442 for the principal investigator. No incentive payment, by contrast, is envisaged for a third member of the team, a specialist in Italian literary philology and Dante studies: all 263 of his hours were classified as basic activities, carrying a weighting of zero. What accounts for such a different assessment? Answering that question requires an account of the work performed at least as precise as the breakdown of payments.
Sodano is a historian of the early modern period whose research focuses on European courts and aristocracies, sainthood and religious life in southern Italy, particularly from the seventeenth to the eighteenth centuries. He has reported 545 hours of work, compared with 442 for the principal investigator. No incentive payment, by contrast, is envisaged for a third member of the team, a specialist in Italian literary philology and Dante studies: all 263 of his hours were classified as basic activities, carrying a weighting of zero. What accounts for such a different assessment? Answering that question requires an account of the work performed at least as precise as the breakdown of payments.
The proposed payments
MaTELDa — Manuscript Tradition of Exegesis and Lectures
on Dante — is a project devoted to Dante's manuscript tradition and its exegesis, funded under the CHANGES extended partnership through PNRR–NextGenerationEU resources. The members of the Vanvitelli research unit were Ciro Perna, the principal investigator, Giulio Sodano and Michele Rinaldi.
The proposal submitted by Perna and subsequently approved allocates individual incentive payments as follows:
The proposal submitted by Perna and subsequently approved allocates individual incentive payments as follows:
MaTELDa · The approved proposal
Proposed individual incentive payments
Additional remuneration paid through payroll. Gross amounts inclusive of all charges.
Total individual incentive payments
€ 36,811
Total hours reported
1,250
Ciro Perna
€ 21,408
Italian and Dante philology; principal investigator 442 hours reported
Giulio Sodano
€ 15,403
Early modern history; Director of DiLBeC
545 hours reported
Michele Rinaldi
€ 0
Italian and Dante philology
263 hours reported
All bars use the same scale, from €0 to €25,000. The amounts include charges borne by both employee and employer; the approved proposal does not establish that payment has actually been made.
Which activities gave rise to the incentive payments?
The regulatory instrument cited in Perna’s request is University of Campania Rectoral Decree No. 146 of 13 February 2023. The regulations do not determine incentive payments solely on the basis of hours worked. Table 1 assigns a weighting of zero to basic activities; 1.5 to activities making a specific contribution to outputs and results; 2 to involvement in project design and coordination; and 3 to activities associated with particular results achieved.
To understand the allocation, it is therefore necessary to identify which activities were assigned to each category, what results they produced, and how the weighted hours, together with each individual's hourly personnel cost, determined the payment. The stated coefficient makes it possible to follow the calculation, but it must be accompanied by a description of the work to which it was applied.
Ciro Perna's scholarly role is readily identifiable: he initiated and leads the project and works directly on philology and the Dantean tradition. Even so, the €21,408 figure needs to be supported by a link between weighted hours, documented assignments, activities and results.
For Giulio Sodano, a historian of the early modern period, 545 hours have been reported, more than the principal investigator's 442. His research concerns European courts, aristocracies, and sainthood and religious life in southern Italy, particularly between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A scholar from a different disciplinary background may certainly undertake work of value to the project. In the documents examined to date, however, his operational contribution is not described in sufficient detail to reconstruct the relationship between activities, weightings and incentive payments. Which project-design or coordination duties did he perform? To which outputs did he contribute? Which results were taken into account when assigning the coefficients? A detailed account would help explain how the proposed payment of €15,403 was calculated.
The comparison with Michele Rinaldi makes the criterion adopted particularly significant. Rinaldi is a scholar of Italian literary philology, taught Italian Philology and Dante Philology at Vanvitelli as an associate professor, edited texts by Dante, and participated in the Illuminated Dante Project. He subsequently won a competitive appointment to a full professorship at the Scuola Superiore Meridionale, where he took up his post on 14 May 2026.
To understand the allocation, it is therefore necessary to identify which activities were assigned to each category, what results they produced, and how the weighted hours, together with each individual's hourly personnel cost, determined the payment. The stated coefficient makes it possible to follow the calculation, but it must be accompanied by a description of the work to which it was applied.
Ciro Perna's scholarly role is readily identifiable: he initiated and leads the project and works directly on philology and the Dantean tradition. Even so, the €21,408 figure needs to be supported by a link between weighted hours, documented assignments, activities and results.
For Giulio Sodano, a historian of the early modern period, 545 hours have been reported, more than the principal investigator's 442. His research concerns European courts, aristocracies, and sainthood and religious life in southern Italy, particularly between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A scholar from a different disciplinary background may certainly undertake work of value to the project. In the documents examined to date, however, his operational contribution is not described in sufficient detail to reconstruct the relationship between activities, weightings and incentive payments. Which project-design or coordination duties did he perform? To which outputs did he contribute? Which results were taken into account when assigning the coefficients? A detailed account would help explain how the proposed payment of €15,403 was calculated.
The comparison with Michele Rinaldi makes the criterion adopted particularly significant. Rinaldi is a scholar of Italian literary philology, taught Italian Philology and Dante Philology at Vanvitelli as an associate professor, edited texts by Dante, and participated in the Illuminated Dante Project. He subsequently won a competitive appointment to a full professorship at the Scuola Superiore Meridionale, where he took up his post on 14 May 2026.
All 263 of his hours on the MaTELDa project were classified as basic activities, with a coefficient of zero, and therefore generated no incentive payment. Disciplinary specialisation and the number of hours worked do not, by themselves, establish entitlement to additional remuneration. Assessing this classification nevertheless requires knowing which of Rinaldi's activities were recognised as basic activities, and which activities performed by the other participants received higher weightings. The comparison must be based on documented duties, responsibilities and results.
Funding and the project margin
MaTELDa was funded through the CHANGES partnership cascade funding call, under the PNRR, Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.3. The funding initially awarded amounted to €269,668.75. The final financial statement records total costs and a grant disbursement of €263,286.20.
The financial report lists €105,880.87 under “miscellaneous costs”, €74,700 for non-permanent personnel, €73,625 for existing university staff, and €9,080.33 in indirect costs. The last two items make up the project margin of €82,705.33.
This margin arises from the accounting recognition of hours worked by personnel already employed by the University and from the reimbursement of its general and indirect costs. The regulations govern the use of these reimbursements and allow a portion to be allocated to incentive funds. Their origin explains the accounting mechanism; their subsequent distribution requires application of the prescribed criteria for determining payments.
The financial report lists €105,880.87 under “miscellaneous costs”, €74,700 for non-permanent personnel, €73,625 for existing university staff, and €9,080.33 in indirect costs. The last two items make up the project margin of €82,705.33.
This margin arises from the accounting recognition of hours worked by personnel already employed by the University and from the reimbursement of its general and indirect costs. The regulations govern the use of these reimbursements and allow a portion to be allocated to incentive funds. Their origin explains the accounting mechanism; their subsequent distribution requires application of the prescribed criteria for determining payments.
What the regulations provide for, and what depends on project-level decisions
The regulations divide the total margin between the University's central budget and the managing unit: 30% goes to the University and 70% to the unit administering the project, subject to the ceiling on the central share under Article 5(2). For MaTELDa, these amounts are €24,811.59 for the University and €57,893.74 for DiLBeC.
Within the Department's share, the statement allocates €36,812.50 to individual incentive payments for academic staff (P1); €3,775.64 to incentives for technical and administrative staff (P2); and €943.91 to the University's general academic staff incentive fund (P3). It also records a remaining balance of €16,361 for research.
P3 represents 2.5% of the total allocated to academic staff incentives, namely P1+P3. In the MaTELDa statement, P2 amounts to 10% of the same total: the ordinary minimum for technical and administrative staff, subject to the compatibility requirements concerning financial reporting laid down in the regulations. P1, P2 and P3 are already included in the 70% allocated to the Department: the 2.5% and 10% rates apply to a different calculation base from the overall margin and are not added to the initial 70%/30% division.
The P1 allocation of €36,812.50 corresponds to exactly 50% of the €73,625 attributed to the cost of existing university staff. The general regulations do not impose this percentage. For PNRR implementation projects, where the notional personnel costs specified by the rules are present, the regulations permit P1+P2+P3 to reach 100% of the margin net of the central share. This is an option, subject to an upper limit, rather than a requirement. The University is permitted, but not required, to allocate sums of this magnitude to incentive payments. The decision to envisage nearly €37,000 in additional payroll payments for two academics therefore remains a choice that calls for explanation in terms of the work performed and results achieved. Reconstructing the rationale for selecting the 50% rate in MaTELDa's case requires the original project planning documents and any implementing provisions applied.
Two minor discrepancies between the financial statements remain to be reconciled: deducting P1, P2 and P3 from the Department's allocation produces €16,361.69, compared with the stated residual amount of €16,361; meanwhile, the two proposed individual payments total €36,811, which is €1.50 less than the P1 allocation.
Within the Department's share, the statement allocates €36,812.50 to individual incentive payments for academic staff (P1); €3,775.64 to incentives for technical and administrative staff (P2); and €943.91 to the University's general academic staff incentive fund (P3). It also records a remaining balance of €16,361 for research.
P3 represents 2.5% of the total allocated to academic staff incentives, namely P1+P3. In the MaTELDa statement, P2 amounts to 10% of the same total: the ordinary minimum for technical and administrative staff, subject to the compatibility requirements concerning financial reporting laid down in the regulations. P1, P2 and P3 are already included in the 70% allocated to the Department: the 2.5% and 10% rates apply to a different calculation base from the overall margin and are not added to the initial 70%/30% division.
The P1 allocation of €36,812.50 corresponds to exactly 50% of the €73,625 attributed to the cost of existing university staff. The general regulations do not impose this percentage. For PNRR implementation projects, where the notional personnel costs specified by the rules are present, the regulations permit P1+P2+P3 to reach 100% of the margin net of the central share. This is an option, subject to an upper limit, rather than a requirement. The University is permitted, but not required, to allocate sums of this magnitude to incentive payments. The decision to envisage nearly €37,000 in additional payroll payments for two academics therefore remains a choice that calls for explanation in terms of the work performed and results achieved. Reconstructing the rationale for selecting the 50% rate in MaTELDa's case requires the original project planning documents and any implementing provisions applied.
Two minor discrepancies between the financial statements remain to be reconciled: deducting P1, P2 and P3 from the Department's allocation produces €16,361.69, compared with the stated residual amount of €16,361; meanwhile, the two proposed individual payments total €36,811, which is €1.50 less than the P1 allocation.
MaTELDa · Financial overview
From project funding to incentive payments
Three successive allocations: the margin is one component of total project costs; incentive payments are one use of that margin.
Funding initially awarded
€ 269,668.75
Total project costs and grant disbursed in the final statement
€ 263,286.20
Difference between the two amounts: € 6,382.55.
1
Breakdown of total project costs
Calculation base € 263,286.20
Miscellaneous costs
€ 105,880.87 40.2%
Non-permanent personnel
€ 74,700.00 28.4%
Project margin
€ 82,705.33 31.4%
The margin of € 82,705.33 comprises € 73,625.00 in costs for existing university staff and € 9,080.33 in indirect costs.
2
Allocation of the project margin
Calculation base € 82,705.33
Share transferred to the University
€ 24,811.59 30.0%
Share allocated to the Department
€ 57,893.74 70.0%
3
Allocation of the Department's share
Calculation base € 57,893.74
P1 · Individual incentive payments for academic staff
€ 36,812.50 63.6%
P2 · Incentives for technical and administrative staff
€ 3,775.64 6.5%
P3 · General academic staff incentive fund
€ 943.91 1.6%
Balance remaining for research, calculated by subtraction
€ 16,361.69 28.3%
Each allocation uses its own calculation base. The percentages in the third allocation show each item's share of the Department's €57,893.74. The regulatory rates of 2.5% for P3 and 10% for P2, by contrast, apply to P1+P3 (€37,756.41).
Two amounts to distinguish: P1 is €36,812.50; the individual payments proposed for Perna and Sodano total €36,811.00. Difference: €1.50.
Balance remaining for research: the statement reports €16,361.00; deducting P1, P2 and P3 from the Department's share yields €16,361.69. Difference requiring reconciliation: €0.69.
Percentages rounded to one decimal place; bar lengths calculated from the amounts.
Project planning and administrative procedures
The regulations require incentive payments to be planned from the project proposal stage. The statement prepared on the principal investigator's instructions must specify the P1 allocation, the academic staff involved, the estimated hours and the nature of the work required. This advance planning provides the basis for linking the activities envisaged to the payments subsequently determined.
For MaTELDa, the final financial document refers to Departmental Council Resolution No. 19 of 18 June 2024. The records from that stage, read alongside the final financial report, would make it possible to compare planned duties and working hours with those ultimately reported. For any changes to the staff involvement plan, the regulations require an entry in the University's database and notification to the Research Services Centre.
The statement determining the project margin was also signed on 12 May 2026 by Giulio Sodano in his capacity as Department director and validated by the administrative offices on 18 May. On the same day, Perna signed the request for disbursement of incentive payments. Signing off on the margin concerns accounting consistency and is distinct from the approval of individual allocations, which took place through the University's collegial decision-making procedure.
The regulations assign responsibility for proposing the distribution and certifying the activities actually performed, including his own, to the principal investigator. The relevant scrutiny therefore concerns the research documentation and activity records underpinning the request and enabling the criteria applied to be verified.
For MaTELDa, the final financial document refers to Departmental Council Resolution No. 19 of 18 June 2024. The records from that stage, read alongside the final financial report, would make it possible to compare planned duties and working hours with those ultimately reported. For any changes to the staff involvement plan, the regulations require an entry in the University's database and notification to the Research Services Centre.
The statement determining the project margin was also signed on 12 May 2026 by Giulio Sodano in his capacity as Department director and validated by the administrative offices on 18 May. On the same day, Perna signed the request for disbursement of incentive payments. Signing off on the margin concerns accounting consistency and is distinct from the approval of individual allocations, which took place through the University's collegial decision-making procedure.
The regulations assign responsibility for proposing the distribution and certifying the activities actually performed, including his own, to the principal investigator. The relevant scrutiny therefore concerns the research documentation and activity records underpinning the request and enabling the criteria applied to be verified.
Comparison with research fellowships
The final financial report records €74,700 for non-permanent personnel. The publicly available documents identified provide for eight research fellowships advertised through five selection procedures, for the same overall amount: two ten-month fellowships worth €16,000 and €14,000, one nine-month fellowship worth €14,400 for the cataloguing of codicological metadata, one eight-month fellowship worth €12,800 for the ontology of web applications, one four-month fellowship worth €4,500, and three one-month fellowships, each involving 125 hours, worth a combined €13,000.
The four-month fellowship for entering descriptive metadata into the Omeka platform, established by Director's Decree (D.D.) No. 155 of 7 May 2025, carried an all-inclusive gross amount of €4,500. The original notice specified 1,225 hours; the subsequent Director's Decree (D.D.) No. 162 of 14 May 2025 corrected the workload to 500 hours. The correct figure is therefore 500 hours over four months, equivalent to an all-inclusive gross rate of €9 per hour.
The correspondence between the advertised fellowship amounts and the “non-permanent personnel” expenditure heading makes this reconstruction possible. Establishing whether payments were actually made, when the appointments began, and whether any extensions were granted would require the appointment and payment authorisations and the relevant decisions concerning duration. Article 11 of the calls allows for extensions, also conditional on an extension of the project itself; that provision does not demonstrate that any extension was granted.
The €36,811 in individual incentive payments proposed for Perna and Sodano is equivalent to approximately 49.3% of the €74,700 allocated to the eight advertised fellowships. This comparison illustrates the relative scale of the two uses of resources, which relate to different contractual arrangements and activities.
The four-month fellowship for entering descriptive metadata into the Omeka platform, established by Director's Decree (D.D.) No. 155 of 7 May 2025, carried an all-inclusive gross amount of €4,500. The original notice specified 1,225 hours; the subsequent Director's Decree (D.D.) No. 162 of 14 May 2025 corrected the workload to 500 hours. The correct figure is therefore 500 hours over four months, equivalent to an all-inclusive gross rate of €9 per hour.
The correspondence between the advertised fellowship amounts and the “non-permanent personnel” expenditure heading makes this reconstruction possible. Establishing whether payments were actually made, when the appointments began, and whether any extensions were granted would require the appointment and payment authorisations and the relevant decisions concerning duration. Article 11 of the calls allows for extensions, also conditional on an extension of the project itself; that provision does not demonstrate that any extension was granted.
The €36,811 in individual incentive payments proposed for Perna and Sodano is equivalent to approximately 49.3% of the €74,700 allocated to the eight advertised fellowships. This comparison illustrates the relative scale of the two uses of resources, which relate to different contractual arrangements and activities.
Legal basis and conditions requiring verification
Rectoral Decree No. 146/2023 refers to Article 9(1) of Law No. 240/2010. As amended by Article 1(329) of Law No. 232/2016, the provision allows universities to establish, through specific regulations, additional payments for personnel contributing to the award of third-party contracts or public or private funding. The public origin of the resources does not, therefore, constitute a general prohibition on incentive payments in itself.
The provisions of paragraph 1-bis, introduced in 2023 and implemented by Ministry of Universities and Research Decree No. 1299 of 27 September 2023, must be distinguished from this framework: that fund for rewarding research results concerns European or international projects not included in the PNRR. Its restricted scope does not amount to a general prohibition applicable to all other forms of incentive payment financed with public funds.
Also relevant is Article 1(16) of Law No. 230/2005, which links any additional remuneration for full-time professors to further duties assigned under a specific appointment and to the results achieved. The Vanvitelli regulations also require a declaration from the principal investigator that neither the funding conditions nor the applicable rules contain provisions preventing the payment. Examination of this specific case must therefore address the conditions of the funding call, the formal assignments, the certified activities and the criteria used to determine the amounts.
The provisions of paragraph 1-bis, introduced in 2023 and implemented by Ministry of Universities and Research Decree No. 1299 of 27 September 2023, must be distinguished from this framework: that fund for rewarding research results concerns European or international projects not included in the PNRR. Its restricted scope does not amount to a general prohibition applicable to all other forms of incentive payment financed with public funds.
Also relevant is Article 1(16) of Law No. 230/2005, which links any additional remuneration for full-time professors to further duties assigned under a specific appointment and to the results achieved. The Vanvitelli regulations also require a declaration from the principal investigator that neither the funding conditions nor the applicable rules contain provisions preventing the payment. Examination of this specific case must therefore address the conditions of the funding call, the formal assignments, the certified activities and the criteria used to determine the amounts.
Making the relationship between work and payments verifiable
The project and the incentive-payment proposal have received the approvals of the competent university bodies. To understand the decisions taken, it would be useful to make the accompanying scientific and financial documentation accessible: the initial plan identifying participants, hours and duties; the research project and its work packages; the implementation timetable and financial plan; and any changes made during the project's execution.
Above all, access is needed to timesheets and activity records or reports describing the work associated with the various coefficients. For each amount, it should be possible to reconstruct the full sequence: assignment, work performed, output or result, weighting applied to the hours, and calculation of the payment.
The documentation should also provide a breakdown of the €105,880.87 recorded as “miscellaneous costs”, the €74,700 allocated to non-permanent personnel, and the research and digital outputs made available to the public. A description of these elements would make it possible to relate the financial report to the objectives of the funding.
The central question remains straightforward: what activities were carried out, and what results account for the different incentive-payment allocations among project participants? The project documentation should explain these decisions and allow them to be examined on their merits, with the transparency required in the use of public funds.
Above all, access is needed to timesheets and activity records or reports describing the work associated with the various coefficients. For each amount, it should be possible to reconstruct the full sequence: assignment, work performed, output or result, weighting applied to the hours, and calculation of the payment.
The documentation should also provide a breakdown of the €105,880.87 recorded as “miscellaneous costs”, the €74,700 allocated to non-permanent personnel, and the research and digital outputs made available to the public. A description of these elements would make it possible to relate the financial report to the objectives of the funding.
The central question remains straightforward: what activities were carried out, and what results account for the different incentive-payment allocations among project participants? The project documentation should explain these decisions and allow them to be examined on their merits, with the transparency required in the use of public funds.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento