Here it is folks. You can download all 68 pages (pdf form) here. We'll be commenting on it later today. I can tell you right now, there are enough interesting factoids in here that we, at Rattler Nation, can feast on for the remainer of the week.
Here's the document: 2007 FAMU Audit-Final
Finding Number No. 23: Cellular Telephones
ReplyDelete"...the university had no coordinated procedure for determining the most economic and efficient use of cellular telephones (cell phones)."
Wasn't the whole point of Castell's decision to confiscate employee cell phones to in 2005 to make sure such a procedure was in place? If not, then why did she even do it?
Finding No. 26: Competitive Procurement of Contractual Services
"The University paid $670,341 for consulting services for the student financial aid office...We requested, but were not provided, documentation evidencing that the University selected the contractor using a competitive solitication process or evidencing that the purchase of these services was exempt from competitive selection."
So is this something that Castell is trying to blame on Humphries, as well? Did Humphries block Castell's staffers from documenting the justification for this consulting process? Did he sneak into Foote-Hilyer and steal the papers?
This finding also blasts Castell and Debbie's decision to hand $180,820 to the Hollins Group for the dean searches without a competitive bidding process. Castell and Debbie claimed they did so because it was an "emergency."
The state auditors tore them a new asshole for that stupid decision. The report observes: "It was not apparent, of record, why the University did not initiate a competitive selection process sooner, which may have avoided the need for the University to consider this an emergency situation. In addition, the agreement for services did not indicate when the services had to be completed, indicating that there was no urgency in the services being performed. As such, there was no apparent basis for the emergency exemption."
So Castell and Debbie first claim the dean vacancies are an emergency. Then, they turn around and tell the Hollins Group: "Oh we aren't going to set any deadline for the completion of the dean searches. No rush..."
Again, this is not a problem that can be blamed on previous administrations. The previous administrations did not force Castell and staffers to violate state contracting laws in FY 2005-2006.
RN reported that a number of trustees, including W. George Allen were informed about the university's failure to conduct a competitive bid for the KPMG dean search contract. However, they took no action.
This operational audit is disturbing, but absolutely necessary. It tells the hard truth about all the gross financial mismanagement that has occurred under Castell's watch.
I notice that musch discussed in the report far exceeds Bryant (alot of this is the simply consequence of patterns and policies that seem to have been in placed for a decade or more), although I agree that things didn't get better on her watch. Brant should have been much more radical and more aggressive. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Ammons has his hands full. He needs to completely clean house. He might as well start now, as it will take 6 months a year to get his new staff up and running, but we have to be on solid ground against next Spring or we are going to pay serious consequences in the legislature, including the possible loss of the COE, particularly now that FSU is being allowed to raise tuition while FAMU is not. I hope that the FAMU community give Bryant the authority he needs to make big changes. They are necessary to the simple survival of the university.
ReplyDeleteFollow-up to Management Response
ReplyDeleteThe President, in her letter that accompanied the University’s response to our preliminary and tentative findings, requests that this finding be removed from our report. However, there is no apparent basis for this request as the University did not provide any
documentation or information to indicate that the finding was inaccurate.
The University’s response to the second bullet of this finding, regarding the unpublished June 30, 2005, report, indicates that the
President never requested the review and that the University has no work papers supporting this review. However, our audit
disclosed correspondence from the former Inspector General to the President indicating that the President was aware of and had
requested the review, and we visually observed the work papers supporting the review. In light of these apparent discrepancies, the University Board of Trustees should consider referring this matter to the Board of Governors Task Force on FAMU Finance and Operational Control Issues for its review.
The University’s response to the second bullet of this finding, regarding the unpublished November 11, 2005, report, indicates that
the report was not published because supporting work papers for the review were incomplete; the report was still in draft at the time the former Inspector General was put on administrative leave in June 2006; the University does not have access to an electronic copy
of the report; and the Vice-President, Audit and Compliance, and Interim Director of Audit and Assurance Services, lacked historical knowledge of the details of the work performed to adequately resume the review and publish the report. However, as stated in the finding, the University did not document, of record, the decision and reasons for not publishing the report.
The University’s response to the second bullet of this finding also refers to reporting requirements established by professional
standards; however, our finding makes reference to reporting requirements included in the Inspector General’s charter in effect during the 2005-06 fiscal year.
I'm reading this report and the only word to describe it is appalling. I'm only on Finding #3 and I've reached the second time that Dr. Bryant asked for a finding to be removed... just because she said so.
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous. The sheer volume of the findings is alarming enough without taking into account the administration's (from now on I'll refer to the administration as "Dr. Bryant", "she" or "her") responses.
For Finding #1, the report basically says that she lied about not knowing about the IG's completed reports. The auditor then goes on to state that he has written documentation to show that she lied.
For Finding #2 Dr. Bryant goes out on a limb and says "we didn't know we had to include leftover funds from last year's operating budget in this year's planned expenditures". REALLY? If that's the case, she should have been gone a long time ago. This is basic budgeting. She & the rest of those people up there could really benefit from a few courses in SBI. And if she didn't know the rules, she should have made sure that she hired someone who knew the rules.
Finding #3 is the worst so far: What do you mean the same people who sent FAMU's money to different accounts were the same people who verified that it had been received? That's just assinine. These people could have been sending money to their own accounts. Thank God they weren't but still, the lack of the separation of duties is disturbing. But the worst part is the response. Basically, she wrote a letter that showed that she had no idea what the hell the auditors were talking about. She doesn't even know who sends FAMU's money out of the door. And clearly, she doesn't know from which accounts the money is sent. Yet again, she asks the finding to be eliminated, just because.
If anyone else had pulled this crap, they'd have been fired - with cause - a long time ago.
Goodbye CastHell & Good Riddance!!
ok call me dumb but how do I see this? When I click on the link it brings me to an ebay page to buy "Megadownload".
ReplyDeleteI was dumb too. At the top right of the page, you are given some letters to type in the box.
ReplyDelete