When FAMU’s 2009 operational audit came out last week, Florida media outlets jumped to report that auditors want the university to do a better job monitoring cell phone usage.
However, there was an important piece of context missing. Out of the 11 State University System members, the University of Florida is the only one that did not receive a cell phone management-related citation in its most recent operational audit.
Below is a listing of the Florida auditor general’s findings on mobile phone problems at the state’s public universities (along with the years in which the audits were released):
FAU (2007) Finding No. 10: The University did not adequately monitor cellular telephone (cell phone) usage, and did not report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees who did not make an adequate accounting of the business use of their assigned cell phones. In addition, the University paid certain taxes and fees for which it was exempt.
FGCU (2006) Finding No. 6: The University had not established written policies and procedures regarding cellular telephone assignment and use.
FIU (2008) Finding No. 8: The University did not, of record, adequately monitor cellular telephone (cell phone) usage to determine personal calls made and any needed reimbursements. As such, the University was required to, but did not, report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income of these employees.
FSU (2008) Finding No. 2: The University did not adequately monitor cellular telephone (cell phone) usage, and did not report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees who did not make an adequate accounting of the business use of their assigned cell phones.
New College (2007) Finding No. 7: The College did not adequately monitor cellular telephone (cell phone) usage, and did not report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees who did not make an adequate accounting of the business use of their assigned cell phones. In addition, the College paid certain taxes for which it was exempt.
UCF (2008) Finding No. 7: The University paid taxes on cell phone services for which it was exempt.
UNF (2008) Finding No. 5: The University did not require employees who were issued cell phones to document the differentiation between business related and personal calls. As such, the University was required to, but did not, report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income of these employees.
USF (2008) Finding No. 10: Because University procedures for monitoring cellular telephone (cell phone) usage were not in compliance with the United States Treasury Regulations substantiation requirements, the University was required to, but did not, report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees assigned cell phones. In addition, the University paid certain taxes on cell phone service for which it was exempt.
UWF (2006) Finding No. 6: University policies and procedures for acquiring and using cellular telephones (cell phones) were not consistently followed and, in some instances, did not provide for adequate monitoring of cell phone usage. Also, the University did not report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees who did not make an adequate accounting of the business use of their assigned cell phones.
Ammons’ first operational audit shows dramatic improvement
However, there was an important piece of context missing. Out of the 11 State University System members, the University of Florida is the only one that did not receive a cell phone management-related citation in its most recent operational audit.
Below is a listing of the Florida auditor general’s findings on mobile phone problems at the state’s public universities (along with the years in which the audits were released):
FAU (2007) Finding No. 10: The University did not adequately monitor cellular telephone (cell phone) usage, and did not report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees who did not make an adequate accounting of the business use of their assigned cell phones. In addition, the University paid certain taxes and fees for which it was exempt.
FGCU (2006) Finding No. 6: The University had not established written policies and procedures regarding cellular telephone assignment and use.
FIU (2008) Finding No. 8: The University did not, of record, adequately monitor cellular telephone (cell phone) usage to determine personal calls made and any needed reimbursements. As such, the University was required to, but did not, report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income of these employees.
FSU (2008) Finding No. 2: The University did not adequately monitor cellular telephone (cell phone) usage, and did not report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees who did not make an adequate accounting of the business use of their assigned cell phones.
New College (2007) Finding No. 7: The College did not adequately monitor cellular telephone (cell phone) usage, and did not report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees who did not make an adequate accounting of the business use of their assigned cell phones. In addition, the College paid certain taxes for which it was exempt.
UCF (2008) Finding No. 7: The University paid taxes on cell phone services for which it was exempt.
UNF (2008) Finding No. 5: The University did not require employees who were issued cell phones to document the differentiation between business related and personal calls. As such, the University was required to, but did not, report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income of these employees.
USF (2008) Finding No. 10: Because University procedures for monitoring cellular telephone (cell phone) usage were not in compliance with the United States Treasury Regulations substantiation requirements, the University was required to, but did not, report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees assigned cell phones. In addition, the University paid certain taxes on cell phone service for which it was exempt.
UWF (2006) Finding No. 6: University policies and procedures for acquiring and using cellular telephones (cell phones) were not consistently followed and, in some instances, did not provide for adequate monitoring of cell phone usage. Also, the University did not report to the Internal Revenue Service the value of cell phone services as income for employees who did not make an adequate accounting of the business use of their assigned cell phones.
Ammons’ first operational audit shows dramatic improvement
I think Dr. Ammons is doing a great job. Why do people want to hold FAMU to a different standard? The Tallahassee Democrat's article was written in such a way that you would think the sky was falling. EVERY university in America has operational audit findings. It't time to cut out the rhetoric and move forward.
ReplyDeleteGO FAMU!!!
So here's another reason to rid ourselves of the board of governors. At minimum, start over with the members, lose all of them and come closer to fair representation for each member school. Perhaps each member school's choice for "expert on the school and in a given higher education associable field.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting idea. Under your proposal, the BOG would function much like SACS. It would be peer-review body rather than a political appointee body. I think that could go a long way towards taking the repulsive politics out of the current system and replacing it with some common sense.
ReplyDelete