Summary

Our operational audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, disclosed the following:

Finding No. 1:    Contrary to law, three College Board of Trustees members and the College’s Director of Purchasing had not filed required statements of financial interest with the local supervisor of elections.

Finding No. 2:    Contrary to College procedures, laboratory fees assessed for 17 of 22 courses tested were not, of record, approved by the Board of Trustees and supported by forms documenting unusual costs that necessitated the fees.

Finding No. 3:    Contrary to College procedures, forms prescribed for documenting the calculation of recreation and leisure course fees were not prepared to document that such fees were at least equal to the full cost of instruction.

Finding No. 4:    Contrary to College procedures, calculations of student fees for continuing workforce education courses were not made using the prescribed form and indirect cost rate.  Also, our tests disclosed instances in which calculated fees, or costs used to calculate fees, were not supported by College records.

Finding No. 5:    The College needed to enhance its procedures for documenting the approval of, and basis for, fee exemption scholarships.

Finding No. 6:    College procedures did not require verification of employment history and experience, verification of professional license status, or contact with personal references for newly‑hired employees.

Finding No. 7:    The College did not require fingerprint checks for employees in positions of special trust or of a sensitive nature.

Finding No. 8:    Our tests disclosed instances in which College records did not document that instructors met the requirements established in the approved salary schedule or position descriptions.

Finding No. 9:    Instructional overload compensation for full‑time employees and adjunct instructor compensation were paid without benefit of time reports certified by appropriate supervisory personnel.

Finding No. 10: The College needed to enhance its procedures to ensure that full-time faculty work schedules were complete and accurate.

Finding No. 11: Contrary to law, the College did not always procure goods or services using a competitive selection process or properly document that such procurements were exempt from competitive selection requirements.

Finding No. 12: The College needed to enhance its procedures to ensure that payments to the College’s construction manager were in accordance with contract terms.  In addition, for some professional services contracts, the College did not require the contractors to obtain appropriate insurance coverage.

Finding No. 13: The College did not document the propriety of approximately $65,000 of expenditures of specific State appropriations. 

The College's response is included as Appendix B of this report.