type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND\n COMMUNITY SERVICE\n\n\n\n\n PRE-AUDIT SURVEY OF THE\n MISSOURI COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION\n\n OIG Audit Report Number 00- 17\n November 5, 1999\n\n\n\n\n Prepared by:\n\n KPMG LLP\n 2001 M Street N.W.\n Washington, DC 20036\n\n Under CNS OIG MOU # 98-046-5003\n With the Department of Labor\n DOL Contract # 5-9-G-8-0022\n Task # B9G8V103\n\n\n\n\nThis report was issued to Corporation management on March 28, 2000. Under the laws and regulations\ngoverning audit follow up, the Corporation must make final management decisions on the report\'s findings\nand recommendations no later than September 28, 2000, and complete its corrective actions by March 28,\n2001. Consequently, the reported findings do not necessarily represent the final resolution of the issues\npresented.\n\x0c CORPORATION\n\n Office of Inspector General FOR NATIONAL\n Corporation for National and Community Service\n\n Pre-Audit Survey of the\n Missouri Community Service Commission\n OIG Audit Report Number 00-17\n\nIntroduction\n\nThe Corporation for National and Community Service, pursuant to the authority of the National and\nCommunity Service Act, awards grants and cooperative agreements to state commissions, nonprofit\nentities, tribes and territories to assist in the creation of full and part time national and community\nservice programs. Currently, in accordance with the requirements ofthe Act, the Corporation awards\napproximately two-thirds of its AmeriCorps StateINational funds to state commissions. The state\ncommissions in turn fund, and are responsible for the oversight of, subgrantees who execute the\nprograms. Through these subgrantees, AmeriCorps Members perform service to meet educational,\nhuman, environmental, and public safety needs throughout the nation.\n\nThus, state commissions play an important role in the oversight of ArneriCorps programs and\nexpenditures. The Corporation has indicated that it intends to give them greater responsibility.\nHowever, the Corporation lacks a management information system that maintains comprehensive\ninformation on its grants including those to state commissions and subgrantees. Moreover, although\nthe Corporation began state commission administrative reviews in 1999, the Corporation,\nhistorically, has not carried out a comprehensive, risk-based program for grantee financial and\nprogrammatic oversight and monitoring. It is also unlikely that AmeriCorps programs are subject\nto compliance testing as part of state-wide audits under the Single Audit Act due to their size relative\nto other state programs.\n\nTherefore, CNS OIG has initiated a series ofpre-audit surveys intended to provide basic information\non the state commissions\' operations and funding. The surveys are designed to provide a\npreliminary assessment of the commissions\' pre-award and grant selection procedures, fiscal\nadministration, monitoring of subgrantees (including AmeriCorps Member activities and service\nhour reporting), and the use of training and technical assistance funds. For each survey, we will\nissue a report to the state commission and to the Corporation communicating the results and making\nrecommendations for improvement, as appropriate.\n\nWe engaged KPMG LLP to perform the pre-audit survey of the Missouri Community Service\nCommission. KPMG \'s report, which-follows, includes recommendations for improvements by the\nCommission, oversight by the Corporationfor National Service, and a full-scope financial audit of\nthe Commission by OIG. We have reviewed the report and work papers supporting its conclusions,\nand we agree with the findings and recommendations presented. Responses to the report by the\nMissouri Commission and the Corporation for National Service are included as appendices C and\nD, respectively.\n\n\n Inspector General\n 1201 New York Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 2052.5\n\x0c Pre-Audit Survey of the\n Missouri Community Service Commission\n Table of Contents\n\n\n\nRESULTS IN BRIEF ...................................................................................................................... 1\n\nBACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................\n 2\n\nOVERVIEW OF THE MISSOURI COMMISSION ..................................................................... 3\n\nOBJECTIVES. SCOPE. AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................3\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................\n 5\n\nAPPENDIX A. COMMISSION FUNDING: 1996-97 THROUGH 1998-99 .............................A .1\n\nAPPENDIX B. DETAILED ENGAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND\n B .1\n METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................\n\nAPPENDIX C. MISSOURI COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION RESPONSE ...............C .1\n\nAPPENDIX D. CORPORATION RESPONSE ........................................................................D .1\n\x0c 2001 M Street, N.W.\n Washington, DC 20036\n\n\n\n\nNovember 5, 1999\n\n\n\nInspector General\nCorporation for National and Community Serv~ce:\n\nAt your request, KPMG performed a pre-audit survey of the Missouri Community Service\nCommission (Commission). The primary purpose of this survey was to provide a preliminary\nassessment of:\n\n the adequacy of the pre-award selection process;\n the fiscal procedures at the Commission;\n the effectiveness of monitoring of its AmeriCorps State subgrantees, including AmeriCorps\n Member activities and service hours; and\n the controls over the provision of technical assistance.\n\nWe were also to report on the recommended scope of additional audit procedures to be\nperformed at the Commission.\n\nResults in Brief\n\nBased on the results of the limited procedures performed, we have made the following\npreliminary assessments regarding the Commission\'s systems for administering its ArneriCorps\ngrants:\n\n The Commission administers an open, competitive process to select national service\n subgrantees. However, we identified areas for improvement related to (1) the lack of\n assessment of applicants\' financial systems during the selection process, and (2) the lack of\n formal conflict of interest statements.\n\n The Commission has developed control policies and procedures to administer the\n Corporation\'s grant funds. However, as discussed in the Findings and Recommendations\n section of this report, the Commission did not effectively monitor adherence to these policies\n and procedures and perform necessary follow up procedures with subgrantees.\n\n The Commission has established controls to evaluate and monitor subgrantees. However, the\n Commission\'s on-site monitoring procedures do not always function as intended and do not\n include (1) review of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 reports or\n other audit reports fiom subgrantees or (2) review of subgrantees\' financial systems and\n expense documentation.\n\x0c The Commission has adequate controls in place to provide reasonable assurance that training\n and technical assistance is made available and provided to subgrantees.\n\nThe section below entitled Findings and Recommendations describes the weaknesses noted\nabove in further detail and addresses additional issues noted during the survey.\n\nBased on our preliminary assessments, we recommend the performance of a full scope audit at\nthe Commission for program years 1995-96 through 1998-99, with a focus on grant\nadministration and subgrantee monitoring.\n\nAdditionally, we recommend that the Corporation follow up with the Commission to determine\nthat appropriate corrective actions are put into place to address the conditions reported herein,\nand that the Corporation consider these conditions in its oversight and monitoring of the\nMissouri Community Service Commission.\n\n\nBackground\n\nThe National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, P.L. 103-82, which amended the\nNational and Community Service Act of 1990, established the Corporation for National and\nCommunity Service.\n\nThe Corporation, pursuant to the authority of the Act, awards grants and cooperative agreements\nto State Commissions, nonprofit entities and tribes and territories to assist in the creation of full\nand part time national and community service programs. Through these grantees, ArneriCorps\nMembers perform service to meet the educational, human, environmental, and public safety\nneeds throughout the nation, especially addressing those needs related to poverty. In return for\nthis service, eligible Members may receive a living allowance and post service educational\nbenefits.\n\nCurrently, the Corporation awards approximately two-thirds of its ArneriCorps State/National\nfunds to State Commissions. State Commissions are required to include 15 to 25 voting\nmembers. Each Commission has a responsibility to develop and communicate a vision and ethic\nof service throughout its State.\n\nThe Commissions provide Amencorps funding to approved applicants for service programs\nwithin their states and are responsible for monitoring these subgrantees\' compliance with grant\nrequirements. The Commissions are also responsible for providing training and technical\nassistance to ArneriCorps State and National Direct programs and to the broader network of\nservice programs in the state. The Commissions are prohibited from directly operating national\nservice programs.\n\nThe Corporation\'s regulations describe standards for financial management systems that must be\nmaintained by State Commissions. The standards require, in part, that the State Commissions\nmaintain internal controls that provide for accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the\nfinancial and programmatic results of financially assisted activities, and provide effective control\nand accountability for all grant and subgrant cash, real and personal property, and other assets.\n\x0cMm\n We were also to report on the recommended scope of additional audit procedures to be\n performed at the Commission.\n\n Our survey included the following procedures:\n\n reviewing applicable laws, regulations, grant provisions, the Corporation\'s State Commission\n Reference Manual, and other information to gain an understanding of legal, statutory and\n programmatic requirements;\n\n reviewing OMB Circular A-133 reports and current program year grant agreements for the\n Commission;\n\n obtaining information from Commission management to complete flowcharts documenting\n the hierarchy of AmeriCorps grant funding for program years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-\n 99; and\n\n performing the procedures detailed in Appendix B over the Commission\'s internal controls,\n selection of subgrantees, administration of grant funds, evaluation and monitoring of grants,\n and the technical assistance process.\n\n As part of the procedures performed, we documented and tested internal controls in place at the\n Commission using inquiries, observations, and examination of a limited sample of source\n documents. Finally, we summarized the results of our work to develop the findings and\n recommendations presented in this report. We discussed all findings with Commission\n management during an exit conference on November 5, 1999.\n\n Our procedures were performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by\n the Comptroller General of the United States. We were not engaged to, and did not, perform an\n audit of any financial statements, and the procedures described above were not sufficient to\n express an opinion on the controls at the Commission, or on its compliance with applicable laws,\n regulations, contracts and grants. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on any such\n financial statements, or on the Commission\'s controls or compliance. Had we performed\n additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been\n reported to you.\n\n We provided a draft of this report to the Commission and the Corporation. The Commission\'s\n and the Corporation\'s responses to our findings and recommendations are included as Appendix\n C and Appendix D, respectively.\n\x0cJ m\n Findings and Recommendations\n\n Selecting Subgrantees\n\n According to A Reference Manual for commission Executive Directors and Members, section\n 3.2, "Commissions are expected to develop a fair and impartial process for reviewing and\n selecting applicants for potential funding."\n\n The Commission administers an open, competitive process to select national service subgrantees.\n Selection officials receive a conflict of interest information sheet and an instruction package and\n use a standard form to evaluate each applicant. However, we identified the following areas for\n improvement within the selection process.\n\n Assessment of ,4pplicants\' Financial Systems during the Selection Process\n\n Selection officials do not consider the adequacy of the applicants\' financial systems durmg the\n Commission\'s subgrantee selection process. The application form provided by the Corporation\n does not specifically address the applicant\'s financial systems. Commission selection procedures\n do not require Commission personnel to request from the applicants additional information\n related to their financial systems. As a result, grant funds may be provided to an organization\n that does not have financial systems in place to properly account for those funds or is unable to\n ensure compliance with related grant requirements.\n\n According to A Reference Manual for Commission Executive Directors and Members, section\n 4.2, Commissions are responsible for maintaining "appropriate financial management systems to\n disburse funds and track Commission and program expenditures according to legal and grant\n requirements." In order to meet this responsibility, the Commission must be able to assure itself\n that subgrantees have systems in place to accurately track expenditures, since this information\n forms the basis of a majority of Commission expenditure reporting.\n\n Lack of Formal Conflict of Interest Statements\n\n According to A Reference Manual for Commission Executive Directors and Members, section\n 3.6, "State Commissions should strive to achieve the greatest objectivity and impartiality\n possible in the review and selection of grantees in the state.. .Any time a voting Commission\n member is not, or does not appear to be, for any reason, impartial to a program that is applying to\n the Commission for funding, the member has a conflict of interest." One way to help ensure this\n objectivity is to require selection officials (i.e., Commission members and peer reviewers) to\n annually certify in writing that they have no conflicts of interest.\n\n Although Commission staff distributes relevant conflict of interest guidance to selection\n officials, the Commission does not have policies and procedures that require these officials to\n annually sign conflict of interest statements certifying that they have no conflicts. If selection\n officials have conflicts of interest but do not report them, the fairness of the selection process\n may be impaired.\n\x0c Recommendations\n\nWe recommend the Commission focus on measures for improving the effectiveness of its\nsubgrantee selection process as follows:\n\n Require applicants to provide information related to their financial systems, and review this\n information during the subgrantee selection process. The review should focus on assessing\n whether the financial systems, as described, would provide reasonable assurance that\n applicants will be able to properly account for grant funds and comply with related grant\n requirements.\n\n Develop and implement procedures that require selection officials to sign conflict of interest\n statements annually after discussion of related issues with Commission staff and review of\n written guidance.\n\n\nAdministering Grant Funds\n\nAs part of the grant administration process, "Commissions must evaluate whether subgrantees\ncomply with legal, reporting, financial management and grant requirements and ensure follow\nthrough on issues of non-compliance" ( A Reference Manual for Commission Executive Directors\nand Members, section 4.3).\n\nThe Commission\'s personnel have adequate skills and experience to manage and administer\nCorporation grant hnds. However, the number of Commission subgrantees has doubled since\nthe 1996-97 program year, and the Commission appears to be having difficulty handling the\nworkload with only three full-time employees. Overall, the Commission\'s staff has developed\ncontrol policies and procedures to administer the Corporation\'s grant funds. However, as\ndiscussed below, staff did not effectively monitor the policies and procedures and perform\nnecessary follow up procedures.\n\nFrom the inception of the ArneriCorps program at the Commission through the end of the 1995-\n96 program year, the Commission disbursed funds to subgrantees evenly throughout the year.\nHowever, the Commission corrected this noncompliance with cash management requirements in\nprogram year 1996-97 by implementing procedures to disburse funds to subgrantees on a\nreimbursement basis.\n\nWe identified the following areas for improvement related to the evaluation of subgrantee\ncompliance with reporting and grant requirements.\n\n Lack of Review of Matching and Earmarking Requirements\n\nCommission procedures require that subgrantees submit a monthly repodreimbursement request,\nwhich is to include documentation for the subgrantees\' matching funds. During the 1997-98\nprogram year, one of two subgrantees tested did not include evidence of its matching funds on its\nmonthly repodreimbursement request to the Commission, and Commission personnel did not\nfollow up timely with the subgrantee to obtain the missing information. Therefore, the\nCommission was unable to ascertain the subgrantee\'s compliance with the applicable matching\n\x0crn\n requirements. This subgrantee did not receive funding in the 1998-99 program year, and the\n Commission withheld payment of the subgrantee\'s last invoice because of the failure to submit\n its matching funds information. Also in the 1997-98 program year, the other subgrantee tested\n utilized greater than 5% of its federal funds for administrative purposes, which did not comply\n with program requirements. However, the Commission did not withhold payment in excess of\n the 5% threshold.\n\n Timeliness of Receipt of Financial Status Reports (FSR)\n\n The Commission does not date-stamp FSRs from subgrantees as they are received. Many of the\n FSRs appear to be received later than the 2othday following the end of the quarter, but the only\n evidence of when they were submitted is the date associated with the Program Director\'s\n signature. Therefore, the Commission can not routinely verify if these documents are submitted\n timely in compliance with the grant agreement. As a result, subgrantee FSRs may be submitted\n late, creating difficulty for the Commission when attempting to prepare and submit its FSR to the\n Corporation on a timely basis.\n\n In program year 1999-2000, the Commission began utilizing the Web Based Reporting System\n which electronically records the date subgrantees submit their FSRs to the Commission. As a\n result, no recommendation is required at this time related to date stamping of FSRs.\n\n Missing FSRs, Supporting Documentation for Expenditures and Programmatic Progress\n Reports\n\n Some of the FSRs for the 1995-96 program year from the two subgrantees we tested could not be\n located by the Commission staff. Additionally, the Commission had not obtained the last four\n FSRs due from another subgrantee during program years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The\n Commission performed a site visit to this subgrantee during our fieldwork, and communicated\n the need to submit FSRs on a timely basis.\n\n In addition to FSRs, the Commission requires the subgrantees to submit, at least on a quarterly\n basis, a detailed expenditure listing to support program and matching expenditures. However,\n Commission personnel did not enforce this requirement during the 1998-99 program year and did\n not follow up with subgrantees at a later date to obtain this documentation. Without FSRs and\n documentation to support the expenditures on the FSRs, the allowability of expenditures reported\n could be in question.\n\n Additionally, we noted during our testing that several subgrantees failed to submit program\n progress reports. Without regular reporting regarding progress made on the program objectives,\n the Commission cannot assess whether a subgrantee program objectives are being achieved.\n\n Noncompliance with the Suspension and Debarment Compliance Requirement\n\n The Commission does not currently have procedures in place to ensure that its subgrantees have\n not been suspended or debarred by the federal government as required by the Office of\n Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-1 33 Compliance Supplement, nor does it monitor\n whether its subgrantees have procedures in place to ensure that organizations with which they\n conduct business have not been suspended or debarred by the federal government. If the\n Commission or one of its subgrantees has awarded or contracted federal funds to an organization\n\x0cJmm\n that has been suspended or debarred, the Commission and/or its subgrantee would not be in\n compliance with OMB Circular A-1 33 and its federal funds could be at nsk.\n\n Recommendations\n\n We recommend the Commission focus on measures for improving the effectiveness of its grant\n administration process as follows:\n\n Develop an improved process for the timely review of and comprehensive review of monthly\n reports submitted by subgrantees. Consider developing a checklist to be used by the\n reviewer to provide reasonable assurance that all required information has been reported and\n verified for compliance with grant agreements. The completed checklist could then be\n submitted to a second person for review and approval. Such a procedure would enhance the\n review and monitoring procedures associated with matching funds and earmarking\n information, and serve as a remmder for communicating instances of noncompliance to\n subgrantees as soon as they are ~dentified,and for following-up to ensure corrective action\n has been taken.\n\n Develop and implement formal procedures to withhold payments to subgrantees when they\n fail to submit required information and reports (e.g., matching funds information, FSRs,\n supporting documentation for expenditures and program progress reports) by the specified\n deadlines. Additionally, when the Commission receives the subgrantees\' supporting\n documentation related to program and matching expenditures, this documentation should be\n reviewed and agreed to the subgrantees\' FSRs and monthly reportlreimbursement requests\n before the Commission disburses funds to the subgrantees. Finally, the Commission should\n continue to emphasize, during training sessions and site visits, the importance of submitting\n the required information and reports timely.\n\n Include in the subgrantee application materials a suspension and debarment certification to\n be signed by a representative of the subgrantee certifying that the subgrantee has not been\n suspended or debarred by the federal government. Additionally, during training sessions\n provided to subgrantees, the suspension and debarment compliance requirement should be\n thoroughly discussed, and during site visits, Commission personnel should verify related\n procedures have been put in place.\n\n\n Evaluating and Monitoring Subgrantees\n\n As noted above, the Commission is responsible for evaluating whether subgrantees comply with\n legal, reporting, financial management and grant requirements and ensuring follow through on\n issues of noncompliance. The Commission has established controls to evaluate and monitor\n subgrantees, which include reviewing program and financial reports and scheduling three site\n visits for each subgrantee during the 15-month grant period. Commission personnel are required\n to notify the subgrantees of the results of these site visits, including strengths, weaknesses,\n concerns, recommendations, and any necessary follow-up requirements\n\n However, we identified the following areas for improvement related to the evaluation and\n monitoring of subgrantees.\n\x0c Review of Subgrantees \' Financial Systems and Expense Documentation During Site\n Visits\n\nCommission personnel do not review the subgrantees\' financial systems and expense\ndocumentation during site visits. As a result, control weaknesses or instances of material\nnoncompliance related to the subgrantees\' financial systems and expense documentation of\nwhich the Commission is not aware might exist.\n\n Maintenance of Supporting Documentation and Documentation of Records Obtained and\n Reviewed During Site Visits\n\nThe Commission utilizes surveys in conducting its Member site visits, and a comprehensive\nchecklist of all AmeriCorps grant provisions in conducting the record review site visits.\nHowever, the Member surveys are not maintained, which could prove problematic if Members\nclaim that they informed the Commission of an issue in a survey and the original survey is not\navailable to the Commission for review. Additionally, while the record review site visit checklist\nis maintained, it does not identify what documents the reviewer tested. Therefore, subsequent\nreviewers would be unable to examine the same documentation if a question arose about the\nresults of the test.\n\n Review of OMB Circular A-133 Reports or Other Audit Reports from Subgrantees\n\nOMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement, April 1999, Part 6 - Internal Control suggests\nthat review of and follow-up on subgrantees\' audit reports is a key component of a program to\nmonitor subgrantees\' compliance with federal grant requirements. However, as part of the\nCommission\'s monitoring process, the Commission does not consistently require its subgrantees\nto submit OMB Circular A-133 or other audit reports, if applicable, and the Commission does not\nroutinely review any such reports to determine if auditors have identified control weaknesses or\ninstances of noncompliance related to the AmeriCorps program. As a result, control weaknesses\nor instances of material noncompliance related to the AmeriCorps program of which the\nCommission is not aware may exist and may not be corrected.\n\n Written Policies and Procedures Related to Follow-up on Deficiencies Noted at\n Subgrantees\n\nThe Commission does not have written policies and procedures to ensure that subgrantees correct\ndeficiencies identified by the Commission. The Commission does specify in the memorandum\nissued to the subgrantee what deficiencies must be corrected and when its response to the\nCommission is due, but the Commission has not been adequately following up on noted\ndeficiencies. As a result, subgrantee deficiencies identified may not be properly or timely\ncorrected.\n\n Schedule of Planned and Actual Site Visit Dates\n\nThe Commission\'s policies require three site visits during the 15-month grant period. The policy\nstates that the overview site visit must be conducted within 3-5 months after the program starts,\nthe Member site visit must be conducted within 2-3 months before the program ends, and the\nrecords review site visit must be conducted in between the overview and Member site visits. The\nCommission maintains a schedule of planned dates for site visits for the upcoming six weeks on\na chalkboard; however, no comprehensive schedule for the grant period exists. An increase in\n\x0c.m\n the number of subgrantees and a lack of a comprehensive schedule of site visits has strained the\n Commission\'s resources for consistently performing all three site visits for each subgrantee. In\n addition, the site visits completed are sometimes not performed within the specified timeframes,\n and feedback to subgrantees is not always provided on a timely basis.\n\n Recommendations\n\n We recommend the Commission focus on measures for improving the effectiveness of its\n evaluation and monitoring of subgrantees as follows:\n\n Develop and implement procedures to review the subgrantees\' financial systems and expense\n documentation during site visits. The Commission should consider tailoring the financial\n management survey included in the Corporation\'s A Reference Manual for Commission\n Executive Directors and Members (pages 5-34) for use during site visits in assessing\n subgrantees\' financial systems.\n\n Develop and implement procedures to maintain Member surveys obtained during the\n Member site visit and documentation of specific records reviewed, in the site visit file for\n each subgrantee.\n\n Require subgrantees to submit OMB Circular A-133 or other audit reports once the final\n reports are issued, where applicable. The Commission should review these reports,\n determine if corrective action relevant to the AmeriCorps grant is needed, and develop\n procedures to ensure necessary corrective action occurs timely and adequately addresses the\n issues.\n\n Develop and implement formal policies and procedures to ensure specific, timely follow up\n is made and adequate corrective actions are taken when deficiencies are noted by the\n Commission during site visits.\n\n Maintain a clear, concise schedule of site visits to be performed during the grant period and a\n record of when site visits are performed. The Executive Director of the Commission should\n monitor the Commission\'s progress towards completing the scheduled site visits. The\n Commission should reconsider the allocation of its resources in light of its staffing situation,\n the number of subgrantees, and an assessment of risk for each subgrantee, to improve the\n effectiveness of its subgrantee evaluation and monitoring procedures. The Commission may\n also want to revise its site visit policy to reduce the number of visits to low risk subgrantees,\n or contract out selected site visits to the Missouri State Auditors\' office or others.\n\n\n Providing Technical Assistance\n\n The Commission has adequate controls in place to provide reasonable assurance that training and\n technical assistance is made available and provided to subgrantees. Procedures are in place at\n the Commission to (1) identify training and technical assistance needs of subgrantees through\n discussions with program directors during quarterly training sessions, site visits, quarterly\n progress reports and a needs assessment survey; (2) notify subgrantees of training programs; and\n (3) provide needed training to subgrantees. We identified no significant areas for improvement\n within this process.\n\x0cThis report is intended solely for the information and use of the Office of the Inspector General,\nthe management of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the management of the\nMissouri Community Service Commission, and the United States Congress and is not intended to\nbe and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.\n\x0c Commission Funding Appendix A\n\nThe table below and the flowcharts on the following pages depict the Commission\'s funding over\nthe past three program years. We were unable to agree the funding amounts to the Commission\'s\nFSRs for (a) 1998-99 because the final FSR for the program year had not been completed at the\ntime of field work and (b) previous program years because those FSRs had been prepared on a\ncumulative, not program year, basis.\n\n\n Funding Source and Type\n\n CNS Formula Grant Funds\n\n CNS Competitive Grant Funds\n\n CNS Promise Fellows Funds\n\n CNS Educational Only Awards\n\n CNS PDAT Funds\n\n CNS Administrative Funds\n\n State Matching Funds\n\n Total Funding\n\n\n* Estimated\n\x0c Commission Funding Appendix A\n\n\n\n\n Corporation for National Service\n Funding to the\n Missouri Community Service Commission\n 1996-1997\nI\n\n I - I\n Formula Competitive Learn and PDAT All Other\n Funds Funds Serve Funds Funds\n Funds\n $1,366,488 $1,184,573 $0 $72,373 $92,047\n\n\n\n\n v v v v v\nI\n\n\n Total Corporation Funds Available to the Commission\n $2,715,481\n\n\n\n\n Funds Awarded to Subgrantees\n $2,551,061\n\n\n\n\n Formula\n Subgrantees Subgrantees\n $1,366,488 $1,184,573\n # of subgrantees # of subgrantees\n 3\n # of sites\n\x0c Commission Funding Appendix A\n\n\n\n\n Corporation for National Service\n Funding to the\n Missouri Community Service Commission\n 1997-1998\nI I\n I I I\n Formula Competitive Learn and PDAT All Other\n Funds Funds Serve Funds Funds\n Funds\n $1,335,081 $1,284,288 $0 $1 19,738 $180,042\n\n\n\n\n v v v v v\n\n Total Corporation Funds Available to the Commission\n $2,919,149\n\n\n\n\n Funds Awarded to Subgrantees\n $2,705,274\n\n\n . Competitive\n Formula Educational\n Subgrantees Subgrantees Award Only\n $ 1,335,081 $1,284,288 Subgrantees\n # of subgrantees # of subgrantees $85,905\n 7 4 # of subgrantees\n # of sites # of sites 4\n 17 # of sites\n 23\n\x0c Commission Funding Appendix A\n\n\n\n\n Corporation for National Service\n Funding to the\n Missouri Community Service Commission\n 1998-1999\n\n I I -- I I I\n Formula Competitive Learn and PDAT All Other\n Funds Funds Serve Funds Funds\n Funds\n $908,3 12 $0 $60,740 $87,006\n\n\n\n\n + v v v\n\n Total Corporation Funds Available to the Commission\n $1,997,922\n -\n\n\n\n Funds Awarded to Subgrantees\n $1,877,466\n\n\n\n\n Formula Competitive\n Subgrantees Subgrantees Promise Fellows\n $ 908,312 $941,864 Subgrantees\n# of subgrantees # of subgrantees $27,290\n 9 5 # of subgrantees\n # of sites # of sites\n 44\n\x0c Detailed Engagement Objectives\n and Methodology Appendix B\n\nInternal Controls\n\nOur objective was to make a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of the Commission\'s\nfinancial systems and documentation maintained by the Commission to provide reasonable\nassurance that transactions are properly recorded and accounted for to: (I) permit the preparation\nof reliable financial statements and Federal reports; (2) maintain accountability over assets; and\n(3) demonstrate compliance with laws, regulations, and other compliance requirements.\n\nIn order to achieve the above objective, we identified the compliance requirements with a direct\nand material effect on the Commission\'s AmeriCorps grant program, as follows: activities\nallowed or unallowed and allowable costs; cash management; eligibility; matching; period of\navailability of Corporation funds; procurement, suspension and debarment; subrecipient\nmonitoring; and reporting by the Commission to the Corporation. We then interviewed key\nCommission personnel to assess the Commission\'s controls surrounding these requirements.\n\nSelecting Subgrantees\n\nOur objectives were to make a preliminary assessment:\n\n of the adequacy of the systems and controls utilized by the Commission to select national\n service subgrantees to be included in an application to the Corporation;\n\n as to whether the Commission evaluated the adequacy of potential subgrantee financial\n systems and controls in place to administer a Federal grant program prior to making the\n award to the subgrantees; and\n\n as to whether Commission involvement in the application process involved any actual or\n apparent conflict of interest.\n\nIn order to achieve the above objectives, we interviewed key Commission management and\ndocumented procedures performed by the Commission during the pre-award financial and\nprogrammatic risk assessment of potential subgrantees. We also reviewed documentation to\ndetermine if conflict of interest forms for each subgrantee applicant tested were signed by\nselection officials annually and maintained by the Commission.\n\nAdministering the Grant Funds\n\nOur objectives were to:\n\n make a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of the systems and controls utilized by the\n Commission to oversee and monitor the performance and progress of funded subgrantees;\n\n make a preliminary assessment as to whether the Commission\'s organizational structure and\n staffing level and skill mix are conducive to effective grant administration and whether the\n Commission has a properly constituted membership;\n\x0c Detailed Engagement Objectives\n and Methodology Appendix B\n\n make a preliminary assessment as to whether the Commission provided adequate guidance to\n subgrantees related to maintenance of financial systems, records, supporting documentation,\n and reporting of subgrantee activity;\n\n make a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of financial systems and documentation\n maintained by the Commission to support oversight of subgrantees and required reporting to\n the Corporation (including Financial Status Reports, enrollment forms and exit forms); and\n\n determine whether the Commission has procedures in place to verify the accuracy and\n timeliness of reports submitted by the subgrantees.\n\nIn order to achieve the above objectives, we reviewed Financial Status Reports submitted by\nsubgrantees, as well as Financial Status Reports submitted by the Commission to the\nCorporation, to preliminarily assess the accuracy of submitted Financial Status Reports. We also\ndetermined whether the Commission had implemented the Web Based Reporting System\n(WBRS).\n\nEvaluating and Monitoring Subgrantees\n\nOur objectives were to:\n\n make a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of the systems and controls utilized by the\n Commission, in conjunction with the Corporation, to implement a comprehensive, non-\n duplicative evaluation and monitoring process for their subgrantees;\n\n determine whether the Commission has an established subgrantee site visit program in place\n and make a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of its design in achieving monitoring\n objectives;\n\n make a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of the Commission\'s procedures used to\n assess subgrantee compliance with Corporation regulations (e.g., those governing eligibility\n of Members, service hour reporting, prohibited activities, payment of living allowances to\n Members and allowability of costs incurred and claimed under the grants by subgrantees\n (including reported match));\n\n make a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of the Commission\'s procedures for\n obtaining, reviewing and following up on findings included in the subgrantee OMB Circular\n A-1 33 audit reports, where applicable;\n\n determine whether program goals are established and results are reported and compared to\n these goals; and\n\n make a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of the procedures in place to evaluate\n whether subgrantees are achieving their intended purpose.\n\x0c Detailed Engagement Objectives\n and Methodology Appendix B\n\nIn order to achieve the above objectives, we documented the procedures performed by the\nCommission to evaluate and monitor individual subgrantees. In addition, we judgrnentally\nselected subgrantees and obtained the Commission\'s documentation for site visits. We reviewed\nthe documentation to preliminarily assess the adequacy of the procedures performed by the\nCommission to assess financial and programmatic compliance and related controls at the sites.\nWe also determined whether the Commission received and reviewed OMB Circular A-133 audit\nreports from subgrantees.\n\nProviding Technical Assistance\n\nOur objectives were to:\n\n make a preliminary assessment of the adequacy of the systems and controls utilized by the\n Commission to provide technical assistance to subgrantees and other entities in planning\n programs, applying for funds, and implementing and operating programs;\n\n determine whether a process is in place to identify training and technical assistance needs;\n and\n\n determine whether training and technical assistance is provided to identified subgrantees.\n\nIn order to achieve the above objectives, we documented the procedures performed by the\nCommission to identify and satisfy training needs for the subgrantees and Commission\nemployees. We also obtained a summary of all training costs incurred during the current year to\nensure they properly related to training activities that were made available to all subgrantees.\n\x0cMe1 Carnahan\n Governor\n MISSOURI.\n D E P A R T M E N T OF E C O N O M I C L~EVELOPMENT\n Appendix C\n\n Joseph L. Driskill\n Director\n\n\n\n\n March 10,2000\n\n\n\n Luise S. Jordan, Inspector General\n Corporation for National Service\n 1201 New York Avenue, N W\n Washington, DC 20525\n\n Re: Missouri Community Service Commission\n Response to Survey Findings\n\n Dear Mr. Jordan:\n\n Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the findings and\n recommendations contained within this report. I would also like to take this\n opportunity to recognize and applaud the outstanding efforts of KPMG in performing\n the fieldwork for this pre-audit survey. In large part due to their open and cooperative\n methods, this office was able to begin implementation of necessary corrective action\n and continuous improvement measures immediately following the actual fieldwork in\n November 1999.\n\n The following is our response to each of the findings contained within the\n report.\n\n Finding #I: Selection oficiuls do not constder the adequacy of the applicants\'financial\n systems during the Cornrnissio?z\'ssubgrantee selection process.\n\n Response: Substantially agree.\n Action: A financial management survey was developed and has been disseminated to\n all new applicants for the 2000-2001 application process. Commission staff\n will use survey responses initially to assess the ability of the organization to\n comply with federal regulations. Policies and procedures will be developed to\n allow staff to use this survey as a tool to assess "riskn as discussed in Findings\n #7-8 and #11 below.\n\n Finding #2: Lack of Formal Con~7ictoflnterest Statew~ents\n\n Response: Substantially agree.\n\n\n\nP.O.Box 1157 301 W. High, Rm. 680 Jefferson City, MO 65102-1157 Homepage:www.ecodev.state.mo.us\n ( 5 7 3 ) 751-4962 Fax ( 5 7 3 ) 751-7258\n\x0cLuise S. Jordan, Inspector General\nMarch 10, 2000 Appendix C\nPage 2 of 4\n\n\nAction: Sample conflict of interest forms received from the Corporation for National\n Service in November 1999 were implemented by the Commission prior to\n the 2000 proposal review process. These conflict of interest forms will be\n used for all future AmeriCorps proposal reviews.\n\nFinding #3: Lack of Review of Matching and Earmarking Requirements\nFinding #4: Timeliness of Receipt of Financial Status Reports\nFinding #T: Missing FSRs, Supporting Documentationfor Expenditures and Programmatic\nProgress Reports\n\nResponse: Substantially agree.\nAction: The Commission has been aware of these issues for some time. Web-based\n reporting is being implemented and will allow for closer monitoring of these\n issues. Policies and procedures will be revised to both strengthen the\n Commission\'s monitoring of subgrantee documentation and reporting\n requirements, and to require all subgrantee reimbursements to be withheld if\n any reports, responses or other information are past due.\n\nFinding #6: Noncompliance with the Suspension and Debarment ComplianceRequirement\n\nResponse: Substantially agree.\nAction: Both Missouri and Federal suspension and debarment lists have been\n identified. The Commission has initiated procedures that ensure, at each\n stage of the grant application process, all organizations will be checked against\n both the Missouri and Federal suspension and debarment lists. The internal\n grant review will be revised to include a notation that the applicant does or\n does not appear on either of these lists as of the date indicated by the staff\n member performing that portion of the assessment.\n\nFinding #7: Review of Subgrantees\' Financial Systems and Expense Documentation During\nSite Visits\nFinding #8: Maintenance of Supporting Documentation and Documentation of Records\nObtained and Reviewed During Site Visits\n\nResponse: Substantially agree.\nAction: The Commission\'s "Records Review Checklist" used by staff during-\n monitoring visits is currently being revised to require more accurate and\n specific review of the subgrantees\' financial and personnel systems, as well as\n to document action taken by the subgrantee in response to findings from\n previous Commission monitoring visits. Risk assessment procedures as\n discussed in response to Findings #1 and #I1 will be used to determine the\n depth of the documentation review required for each subgrantee for each\n program year.\n C.2\n\x0cLuke S. Jordan, Inspector General\nMarch 10,2000 Appendix C\nPage 3 of 4\n\n\n\nFinding #9: Review of OMB Circular A-133 or Other Audit Reportsborn Subgrantees\n\nResponse: Agree only t o the extent that the Commission\'s written procedures are not\n clearly defined regarding collection and review of audit reports from\n subgrantee organizations. Copies of A-133 audit reports for all subgrantees\n from which they were required are currently on file with the Commission\n and are maintained for the appropriate period of time. The audit report\n for the subgrantee at issue in this finding had not been finalized at the time\n of the survey and was not received in this office until after December 31,\n 1999.\n\nAction: The collection of audit reports is clearly identified as a component of the\n Records Review Site Visit. However, in recognition of varying audit\n schedules for subgrantee organizations, a more regular or semi-annual review\n designed to coincide with programmatic progress reporting will be included\n in staff policies and procedures.\n\nFinding #lo: Written Policies and Procedures Related to Follow-up on Deficiencies Noted\nat Subgrantees\n\nResponse: Substantially agree.\nAction: Follow up action has been or is being taken on all site visits and other noted\n deficiencies noted since June 1999. As an interim tracking mechanism, the\n Commission\'s 6-week calendar now includes reminders of due dates for\n responses to noted deficiencies, report due dates and other required\n documentation. These efforts have allowed staff to address past-due reports\n and responses in a more immediate manner. More permanent policies and\n procedures will be developed and implemented and will include provisions\n for withholding subgrantee reimbursements or the suspension of the grant for\n failure to comply with any grant requirement (reports, responses, compliance\n issues or other materials).\n\nFinding #11: Schedule of Planned and Actual Site Visit Dates\n\nResponse: Substantially agree.\nAction: With the assistance and input of staff, the Executive Director and current\n subgrantees, a fair and manageable site visit schedule will be developed. This\n will include an ongoing assessment of risk for each subgrantee that will\n determine the frequency and depth of monitoring required. Policies and\n procedures will be revised to define specific steps to strengthen the entire\n process from risk assessment through follow-up.\n\x0cLuke S. Jordan, Inspector General\nMarch 10, 2000 Appendix C\nPage 4 of 4\n\n\n Additional staff requested through State budget processes will also considerably\nalleviate the limitations of this Commission in achieving 100\xc2\xb0/o compliance for all\nsubgrantees. The Missouri Community Service Commission will work closely with\nthe Corporation for National Service in the coming months to implement all necessary\nimprovement measures.\n\n If you have any questions regarding this response, please feel free to contact\nMark Rehagen, Director of Financial Systems at 573~751-4996,or Curtis Hendricks,\nExecutive Director of the Community Service Commission at 573-751-7488. Thank\nyou.\n\n Very truly yours,\n\n\n\n David D. Mitchem\n Deputy Director\n\nc: Mark Rehagen\n Curtis Hendricks\n\x0cMEMORANDUM\n AmeriCorps National Service C 0R P0RATI0N\n\n FOR N A T I O N A L\nTO: Luise S. Jordan c\n\n\n\nTHRU:\n\nFROM: Deborah R.\n Bruce H. Cline\n\nDATE: March 10, 2000\n\nSUBJECT: Response to the Draft Audit Report 00-17, Pre-Audit Survey of the\n Missouri Community Service Commission\n\nWe have reviewed the draft report on your pre-audit survey of the Missouri Community\nService Commission. Given the nature of the report, this response serves as our proposed\nmanagement decision. We note that your preliminary assessment recommends a full\nscope audit at the Commission for program years 1995-96 through 1998-99, with a focus\non grant administration and subgrantee monitoring. The draft audit report includes a\nrecommendation to the Corporation. We are providing the following response to that\nrecommendation. The Inspector General recommended:\n\n "Additionally, we (the Inspector General) recommend that the Corporation follow\n up with the Commission to determine that appropriate corrective actions are put\n into place to address the conditions reported herein, and that the Corporation\n consider these conditions in its oversight and monitoring of the Missouri\n Community Service Commission."\n\nSome of the conditions cited in the "results in brief\' section of the report include\nconcerns related to the lack of assessment of applicants\' financial systems during the\nselection process and the lack of formal conflict of interest statements. Additional\nconcerns relate to effective monitoring of adherence to policies and procedures and the\nCommission\'s on-site monitoring procedures.\n\nGiven our limited program administration resources, we developed a plan to assess State\nCommission administration functions. Over a three-year period, we will be reviewing\neach of the state commissions. As part of our review of Missouri, we will determine\nwhether the Commission has put appropriate corrective actions in place for conditions\nnoted in the pre-audit survey that your office has issued.\n 1201 New York Avenue. NW\nIn addition to this scheduled review, we will also request that the Missouri Commission Washington. DC 20525\n Tele~hone2024065000\nprovide semi-annual reports on their actions to correct conditions cited in the OIG pre-\naudit survey. D. 1\n Getting Things Done.\n AmeriCorp. National Senrice\n Learn and Serve America\n National Senior Service Corps\n\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 8.10.2015
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 263/40
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALGS AFGØRELSE
 Nr. 249/2014
 af 13. november 2014
 om ændring af protokol 31 til EØS-aftalen om samarbejde på særlige områder ud over de fire friheder [2015/1808]
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR —
 under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (»EØS-aftalen«), særlig artikel 86 og 98, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Det er hensigtsmæssigt at udvide samarbejdet mellem de kontraherende parter i EØS-aftalen til at omfatte Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 377/2014 af 3. april 2014 om oprettelse af Copernicusprogrammet og om ophævelse af forordning (EU) nr. 911/2010 (1).
 (2)
 Det er hensigtsmæssigt, at EFTA-staternes deltagelse i aktiviteterne som følge af forordning (EU) nr. 377/2014 begynder fra den 1. januar 2014, selv om denne afgørelse først vedtages eller opfyldelsen af eventuelle forfatningsmæssige krav i forbindelse med denne afgørelse først meddeles efter den 10. juli 2014.
 (3)
 Enheder, der er etableret i et EFTA-land, bør være berettiget til at deltage i aktiviteter, som starter før ikrafttrædelsen af denne afgørelse. De afholdte omkostninger for sådanne aktiviteter, hvis gennemførelse starter efter den 1. januar 2014, kan betragtes som støtteberettigede på samme vilkår som omkostninger afholdt af enheder, der er etableret i EU-medlemsstaterne, forudsat at denne afgørelse træder i kraft inden afslutningen af den pågældende aktion.
 (4)
 Protokol 31 til EØS-aftalen bør derfor ændres for at gøre det muligt for det udvidede samarbejde at finde sted fra den 1. januar 2014 —
 VEDTAGET DENNE AFGØRELSE:
 Artikel 1
 Følgende stykke indsættes efter artikel 1, stk. 8c, i protokol 31 til EØS-aftalen:
 »8d.
 a)
 EFTA-staterne deltager fra den 1. januar 2014 i de aktiviteter, der måtte følge af følgende EU-retsakt:
 —
 32014 R 0377: Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 377/2014 af 3. april 2014 om oprettelse af Copernicusprogrammet og om ophævelse af forordning (EU) nr. 911/2010 (EUT L 122 af 24.4.2014, s. 44).
 b)
 EFTA-staterne bidrager finansielt til de aktiviteter, der er nævnt i litra a), i overensstemmelse med artikel 82, stk. 1, litra a), i aftalen og protokol 32 hertil.
 c)
 De afholdte omkostninger for aktiviteter, hvis gennemførelse starter efter den 1. januar 2014, kan betragtes som støtteberettigede fra begyndelsen af aktionen i henhold til den pågældende støtteaftale eller støtteafgørelse, forudsat at Det Blandede EØS-Udvalgs afgørelse nr. 249/2014 af 13. november 2014 træder i kraft inden afslutningen af aktionen.
 d)
 EFTA-staterne deltager fuldt ud, men uden stemmeret, i alle de EU-udvalg, der bistår Europa-Kommissionen i ledelse, udvikling og gennemførelse af de i litra a) omhandlede aktiviteter.
 e)
 Dette stykke gælder ikke for Norge og Liechtenstein.«.
 Artikel 2
 Denne afgørelse træder i kraft dagen efter, at den sidste meddelelse er indgivet til Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg, jf. EØS-aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1 (2).
 Den anvendes fra den 1. januar 2014.
 Artikel 3
 Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-afsnit og EØS-tillæg.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 13. november 2014.
 På Det Blandede EØS-Udvalgs vegne
 Kurt JÄGER
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 122 af 24.4.2014, s. 44
 (2) Ingen forfatningsmæssige krav angivet.


text:
 Fontos jogi nyilatkozat
 |
 22000D1019(16)
 Hivatalos Lap L 266 , 19/10/2000 o. 0050 - 0051
 Az EGT-Vegyesbizottság 43/1999 határozata(1999. március 26.)az EGT-megállapodás XVIII. mellékletének (Munkahelyi egészségvédelem és biztonság, munkajog, valamint nők és férfiak közötti egyenlő bánásmód) módosításárólAZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló, az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyvvel módosított megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a Megállapodás), és különösen annak 98. cikkére,mivel:(1) A Megállapodás XVIII. mellékletét az 1998. október 30-i 104/98 EGT-vegyesbizottsági határozat [1] módosította.(2) A nemi alapon történő hátrányos megkülönböztetés esetén a bizonyítási teherről szóló, 1997. december 15-i 97/80/EK tanácsi irányelvet [2] és a nemi alapon történő hátrányos megkülönböztetés esetén a bizonyítási teherről szóló 97/80/EK irányelv Nagy-Britannia és Észak-Írország Egyesült Királyságára történő kiterjesztéséről szóló, 1998. július 13-i 98/52/EK tanácsi irányelvet [3] be kell építeni a Megállapodásba.(3) Azokat a XVIII. mellékletbe épített a jogi aktusokat, amelyeket a Megállapodás Szerződő felei figyelembe vesznek, annak a mellékletnek a végében fel kell sorolni,A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:1. cikkA Megállapodás XVIII. mellékletének 21. pontját (86/613/EGK tanácsi irányelv) követő "JOGI AKTUSOK, AMELYEKET A SZERZÕDÕ FELEK FIGYELEMBE VESZNEK" címsor, a bevezető mondatot és a jogi aktusokat is beleértve, a 32. pont (96/34/EK tanácsi irányelv) után kerül, és a 21a. pont (A Tanács és a tagállamok kormányainak a Tanács keretében ülésező képviselői által elfogadott 95/c 296/06 állásfoglalás), a 21b. pont (95/C 168/02 tanácsi állásfoglalás), valamint a 21c. pont számozása (96/694/EK tanácsi ajánlás) 33., 34. és 35. pontra változik.2. cikkA Megállapodás XVIII. melléklete a 21. pontot (86/613/EGK tanácsi irányelv) követően a következő ponttal egészül ki:"21a. 397 L 0080: A Tanács 1997. december 15-i 97/80/EK irányelve a nemi alapon történő hátrányos megkülönböztetés esetén a bizonyítási teherről (HL L 14., 1998.1.20., 6. o.), az alábbi módosításokkal:- 398 L 0052: a Tanács 1998. július 13-i 98/52/EK irányelve (HL L 205., 1998.7.22., 66. o.),Az irányelv rendelkezéseit a megállapodás alkalmazásában a következő kiigazítással kell alkalmazni:a 3. cikk (1) bekezdésének a. pontjában a "Szerződés 119. cikke" kifejezés helyébe az "EGT-Megállapodás 69. cikkének (1) bekezdése" kifejezés lép."3. cikkA 97/80/EK és 98/52/EK tanácsi irányelv izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövegei, melyek e határozat megfelelő nyelvi változatának mellékletét képezik, hitelesek.4. cikkEz a határozat 1999. március 27-én lép hatályba, amennyiben a Megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerint előírt összes értesítést eljuttatták az EGT-Vegyesbizottsághoz.5. cikkEzt a határozatot az Európai Közösségek Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében, illetve EGT-kiegészítésében közzé kell tenni.Kelt Brüsszelben, 1999. március 26-án.az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részérőlaz elnökF. Barbaso[1] HL L 197., 1999.7.29., 56. o., amelynek helyesbített szövegváltozatát a HL L 226., 1999.8.27., 44. o. tartalmazza.[2] HL L 14., 1998.1.20., 6. o.[3] HL L 205., 1998.7.22., 66. o.--------------------------------------------------


type: wikipedia

text:
René Descartes (lat. Renatus Cartesius) (31. března 1596 La Haye, dnes Descartes, poblíž Tours – 11. února 1650, Stockholm) byl francouzský filosof, matematik a fyzik. Je považován za zakladatele moderní filozofie a zároveň za klíčovou postavu tzv. vědecké revoluce založené na mechanistickém výkladu přírody. Jako první výslovně formuloval zásady vědecké metody, významně se podílel na rozvoji matematiky a fyziky, na vytvoření číselné reprezentace geometrických objektů známé jako kartézská soustava souřadnic, na vzniku analytické geometrie (spojení geometrie a algebry) a na matematizaci optiky. Základním Descartovým východiskem, formulovaným zejména v jeho práci Rozprava o metodě, je metodická skepse, soustavná pochybnost zejména o datech smyslového poznání. Tímto odvážným myšlenkovým krokem dokázal podstatně změnit evropské myšlení a stát se zakladatelem moderní kritické epistemologie, novověké racionalistické filosofie založené na sebejistotě myslícího subjektu („cogito ergo sum“) a analytické metody moderní vědy, která umožnila vědu jako kolektivní dílo. Descartes ovšem odmítl běžnou skepsi, „pochybování pro pochybování“, a pochybnost užíval jen proto, aby se dobral pravdy. Naproti tomu v životě je třeba jednat, i když naše poznání není jisté. zdůrazňoval. Ačkoli je pilířem moderního racionalismu, nebyl ateistou, svůj přístup k božství vyložil ve své knize Meditace o první filosofii. Velkou část života prožil v Nizozemsku, kde tak spoluvytvářel tzv. nizozemský zlatý věk. Psal ovšem francouzsky a latinsky.
 Výslovnost a pravopis
 Descartes (výslovnost [dekárt]), 2. pád [dekárta], psáno Descartese či Descartesa, objevuje se také tvar Descarta.
 Život
 Descartes se narodil ve vzdělané šlechtické rodině 31. března 1596 v La Hayne, dnes Descartes, asi 40 km jižně od Tours. Jeho matka Jeanne Brochardová zemřela krátce po porodu, a proto se neočekávalo, že chlapec přežije. Jeho otec Joachim byl radou soudu („parlamentu“) v Rennes. Nadaného, ale neduživého chlapce vychovávala jeho babička a prastrýc. Ačkoli rodina Descartů byla římskokatolická, oblast Poitou, kde vyrůstal, byla ovládána protestantskými hugenoty.
 V letech 1604 až 1612 studoval na jezuitské univerzitě v La Flèche (Collège Royal Henry-Le-Grand), kde se mu dostalo informací o Galileově systému, ale zejména důkladného vzdělání ve scholastické filosofii, matematice i ve vědách. V Rozpravě o metodě sice o užitečnosti tohoto vzdělání pochyboval, v dopise však později svému příteli tuto univerzitu vřele doporučuje. Na jezuitské univerzitě promoval roku 1614. V letech 1615–1616 studoval, na otcovo přání, práva na univerzitě v Poitiers. Získal zde titul bakaláře. Poté odešel do Paříže, kde psal různá pojednání (o šermu, o hudbě). Protože chtěl poznat svět, odjel do Holandska, kde se seznámil s fyzikem Beeckmanem, s nímž si pak dlouho dopisoval. Lákala ho kariéra profesionálního vojáka, proto roku 1617 vstoupil do vojska Mořice Oranžského, roku 1619 pak bavorského kurfiřta Maxmiliána I. Bavorského. Existuje teorie, že se zúčastnil i bitvy na Bílé hoře proti vojskům českých protestantských stavů v roce 1620, která však bývá též často zpochybňována. 16. listopadu 1619 měl blízko německého Ulmu tři sny, možná i vidění, o nichž si poznamenal, že v nich „našel základy úžasné vědy“. Sny měly i náboženský obsah a Descartes v důsledku učinil slib, že vykoná pouť do italského Loreta. Podle některých badatelů minimálně jeden z těchto intenzivních snových zážitků mohl být způsoben syndromem explodující hlavy.
 Dobře zpeněžil a uložil zděděný majetek, takže byl nezávislý a mohl se věnovat svým zálibám a cestování po celé západní Evropě. V Paříži se seznámil s Otcem Mersennem, významným matematikem a všestranným učencem, který vedl obsáhlou korespondenci se současnými vědci (Pascal, Pierre de Fermat, Torricelli a další); z této skupiny později vznikla Královská akademie. Také Descartes vedl svoji korespondenci hlavně s Mersennem a jak víme z Beeckmanových zápisů, psal o algebře a kuželosečkách; kolem roku 1628 vznikla i jeho Pravidla (Regulae ad directionem ingenii).
 Roku 1627 mu papežský legát kardinál Bérulle uložil, aby se věnoval filosofii. Descartes tedy hledal samotu, kde by ho nikdo nerušil, nejprve v Bretagni a od roku 1629 v Holandsku, kde se věnoval matematice a zkoumání živých organismů a asistoval také u řady pitev. Tak vznikl spis O světě a Pojednání o člověku i řada dalších, které se zachovaly jen v Leibnizových výpiscích. Po odsouzení Galileově (1633) se vrací k filosofii, píše a vydává svá nejznámější díla: Rozprava o metodě, Geometrie a Optika (1637), Meditace o první filosofii (1641) a Principy filosofie (1644).
 Roku 1635 měl s hospodyní Helenou dcerku Francine, která však už v pěti letech zemřela a způsobila mu „největší zármutek života“. V roce 1638 také četl Komenského Pansofii. Posuzoval ji zprvu příznivě, ale nakonec odmítl. Roku 1641 vydal Odpovědi na Hobbesovy námitky proti Meditacím, rok poté se v Leidenu setkal s Komenským. Dalšího roku s Alžbětou, nejstarší dcerou Fridricha Falckého, s níž si pak dlouho dopisoval.
 Roku 1646 napsal Mersennovi: „Od nynějška už nemohu číst žádné knihy, leda dopisy přátel. Nemíchám se také do vědy, leda pro vlastní poučení.“ O rok později se přesto v Paříži setkal s Pascalem a navrhl mu pokusy s atmosférickým tlakem. V roce 1649 odjel na pozvání královny Kristiny, která se už dlouho zajímala o jeho filosofii, do Stockholmu. Schůzky s ní se ale konaly brzo ráno a z tuhé zimy Descartes dostal zápal plic, na jehož následky 11. února 1650 zemřel. Podle některých spekulací byl otráven katolickým knězem, který se obával, že by Descartův vliv mohl zhatit očekávanou konverzi královny Kristiny ke katolicismu. V roce 1667 byly jeho ostatky převezeny do Paříže a od roku 1819 jsou pohřbeny v kostele Saint-Germain-des-Prés.
 Katolická církev zařadila Descartovy spisy na Index zakázaných knih; dekretem Svatého oficia ze dne 10. října 1663 byla na Index zařazena práce Meditationes de prima philosophia a dekrety Svatého oficia ze dne 20. listopadu 1663 a ze dne 22. května 1720 další filozofické spisy.
 Descartovo myšlení
 Descartovo myšlení – filosofické i vědecké – je hluboce poznamenáno neklidem a nejistotami jeho doby. Reformace a náboženské války ve Francii, v Anglii a v celé Evropě podryly středověkou důvěru nejen v Boží zjevení, v bibli, ale i v možnosti lidského poznání a rozumu. Koperník a Galilei ukázali, že běžné smyslové jistoty – například pevná, nehybná Země pod nohama – neplatí. Descarta silně ovlivnila skepse Montaigneova, rozpad scholastické filosofie a stoické myšlenky. Celé jeho životní úsilí je usilovným hledáním pevných jistot, nejprve matematických, později i filosofických: Descartovo řešení spočívá v radikální skepsi, metodickém zpochybnění všeho, o čem lze pochybovat – a právě tam najde pevnou půdu v sebejistotě myslící duše či subjektu.
 „Má-li být všechno poznání odvozeno z nejjednodušších principů, musím si napřed zjednat jistotu o nepochybnosti svého východiska. Co je však jisté? Abych mohl bezpečně postupovat kupředu, nebudu zprvu pokládat za jisté nic. Budu pochybovat o všem, abych zjistil, co obstojí před touto radikální pochybností. Pochybovat musím nejen o všem, co jsem se naučil ve školách, z knih anebo stykem s lidmi, nýbrž i o tom, zda tento svět, který mne obklopuje, skutečně existuje, anebo je pouhým výmyslem, a zda jej vnímám takový, jaký je – vždyť vím, že člověk je často obětí mnohých smyslových klamů. A pochybovat musím rovněž o tom, co se zdá být vůbec nejjistější, o principech matematiky, protože je možné, že náš lidský rozum nedostačuje k poznání pravdy a trvale nás uvádí v omyl.“
 „Když jsme tedy takto zpochybnili všechno, o čem můžeme nějak pochybovat, a dokonce předstírali, že to není pravda, můžeme předpokládat, že není Bůh, ani nebe, ani tělesa; že sami nemáme ruce ani nohy ani celé tělo. Nemůžeme však předpokládat, že nejsme my sami, kteří to myslíme. Nelze tvrdit, že by to, co myslí, v té chvíli, kdy to myslí, neexistovalo. Takže tato myšlenka: Myslím, tedy jsem (latinsky „Ego cogito, ergo sum“), je ze všech první a nejjistější, jaká každému řádně filosofujícímu přijde.“
 Podobnou myšlenku, „Pochybuji, tedy jsem“, napsal už sv. Augustin, dále ji však nerozvedl. Descartova pochybnost ovšem není samoúčelná a slouží jen k nalezení jisté pravdy. „Myslím, tedy jsem“ je první neotřesitelná jistota v radikálním pochybování. Vše by mohl být klam, může se zpochybnit všechno, jen ne to, že právě teď, v tento okamžik, pochybuje. „V této jistotě mám zároveň kritérium a vzor pravdy. Vše, co poznávám stejně bezprostředně, stejně jasně a zřetelně jako tuto větu, musí být tedy stejně jisté. Podaří-li se objevit ještě něco, co by bylo právě tak jisté, učiníme další krok k budování opravdové filosofie.“
 Jako další jistotu objevuje, že má v sobě ideu Boha jako nekonečné, všemocné a vševědoucí bytosti. Tato idea nemůže pocházet z vnímání vnějšího světa ani si ji nemohl vytvořit sám, neboť konečný a nedokonalý tvor si nemůže sám ze sebe vytvořit ideu nekonečné a dokonalé bytosti. Tento druhý krok můžeme označit jako ontologický důkaz existence Boha.
 V dalším kroku získává jistotu o realitě smyslového světa: „K vlastnostem dokonalé bytosti musí nutně náležet i pravdivost. Kdyby Bůh nebyl pravdivý, nebyl by dokonalý. Je tedy nemyslitelné, aby mne chtěl pravdymilovný Bůh klamat a předstíral před mým zrakem tento svět pouze jako klamný přelud.“
 Metoda
 Jedním z nejdůležitějších Descartových výkonů je pokus o formulaci spolehlivé a zcela obecné analytické metody poznání. Na rozdíl od starší tradice, kde každý autor začínal znovu (i když se přitom odvolával na své předchůdce), analytická metoda rozložení problému na co nejjednodušší kroky, které lze spolehlivě vyřešit, dovoluje, aby jedni mohli bez obav stavět na výsledcích druhých. Je to právě tato vědecká metoda, která učinila z vědy kolektivní dílo tisíců a tak umožnila její nevídaný rozvoj.
 Svoji metodu, kterou odvodil ze zkušenosti s geometrickými důkazy, formuloval Descartes dvakrát: poprvé v (nedokončených) Pravidlech pro řízení intelektu (Regulae), podruhé stručněji v Rozpravě:
 Přijímat jen to, co se mi samo představuje tak jasně a zřetelně, že o tom nemohu pochybovat.
 Každý problém rozdělit na co nejjednodušší části, které lze bezpečně poznat.
 Postupovat od jednoduchého ke složitému v pořadí.
 Sestavit úplné seznamy a obecné přehledy, aby bylo jisté, že jsme na nic nezapomněli.
 Descartes je přesvědčen, že i ty nejobtížnější vědecké problémy lze takto rozložit na „dlouhé řetězce“ jednoduchých kroků, a pokud se zachová jejich pořadí, musí se najít řešení.
 “Každá pravda, kterou jsem objevil, byla pravidlem, jež mi pomáhalo nalézat další.“
 Descartův ontologický model
 Descartes rozlišuje Boha jakožto nekonečnou a nestvořenou substanci, a vedle něho jen dvě substance stvořené:
 res extensa, svět těles, tělesnou substanci s hlavním atributem rozprostraněnosti;
 res cogitans, nerozprostraněnou duchovní substanci s atributem myšlení, neprostorový a netělesný duch, myšlení.
 Descartes je tedy v tomto učení zastánce dualismu hmoty a ducha, objektu a subjektu. Rozlehlost i myšlení, tělo i duch jsou nicméně v člověku „nejtěsněji svázány a jaksi promíšeny“. Jenže na otázku, jak mohou tyto dvě zásadně odlišné substance být v jedné bytosti a dokonce na sebe působit, nedovede odpovědět. Na tyto otázky pak navázali Descartovi následovníci (Leibniz, Spinoza, okasionalismus a další).
 Svět těles
 Poznávání světa těles smysly považuje za příliš nejasné a hlavně klamné, podobně jako ostatní filosofové tohoto racionalistického věku. Descartes to dokládá příkladem kousku vosku, který pouhým zahřátím změní všechny své vlastnosti. Plnohodnotné poznání je jen to, které se může vyjádřit v průzračných, rozumových, matematických pojmech. Pro svět těles je to rozlehlost, vyplnění prostoru. Tělesa jsou prostorem a prostor sestává z těles, prázdný prostor neexistuje.
 Věda
 Descartes je patrně právě tím filosofem, který se nejvíc přičinil o vydělení vědy z celku filosofie. Uvažuje o vědecké metodě (v díle „Rozprava o metodě“) a zastřešení dílčích věd pomocí filosofie (v díle „Úvahy o první filosofii“, které je pokračováním „Rozpravy o metodě“). Ve svém díle vlastně jako vůbec první tematizuje samotný proces myšlení. Postupujeme-li nejprve skeptickou metodou, i kdybychom vše popřeli, jsem to vždy JÁ, kdo popírá – tzv. jistota cogito.
 Matematika
 Descartes spolu s Fermatem platí za zakladatele analytické geometrie, tj. aplikace algebraických metod v geometrii, číselného zkoumání geometrických objektů; s tím souvisí i zavedení „kartézského“ systému souřadnic. Na rozdíl od starší spíše názorné geometrie, která pracuje s obrazy bodů, přímek, trojúhelníků a podobně, analytická geometrie řeší úlohy početně: například úlohu najít průsečík dvou přímek se neřeší graficky, nýbrž početně jako společné řešení dvou lineárních rovnic. Tak lze zkoumat i složitější křivky, řešení jsou libovolně přesná a lze je hledat i v prostorech o více dimenzích.
 Ve své Geometrii předvádí také obecné řešení tzv. Pappovy úlohy, kterou starověký matematik dokázal vyřešit jen pro dvě přímky. Obecné řešení úlohy platilo za významný signál, že novověká věda už předčila řeckou.
 Fyzika
 Nejsoustavnější výklad Descartovy fyziky je ve spisu O světě, který sice napsal už 1633, nicméně nepublikoval, aby se nedostal do konfliktu s církví. Spis je totiž pokusem o výklad hypotetického vzniku světa, kde chce Descartes ukázat, že každý „možný“ svět musí nutně vypadat tak, jak vypadá ten skutečný. Descartova fyzika je „geometrická“, protože ztotožňuje hmotu s rozlehlostí a ruší starší představy tíže a účelu, cíle. Zákony pohybu zahrnují princip setrvačnosti, zachování souhrnné hybnosti při nárazu a přednost kruhového pohybu.
 Ve své Optice formuluje Descartes zákony odrazu a lomu světla (dnes Snellův zákon) a uvádí index lomu skla a vody. Na tomto základě podává také úplnou teorii duhy, navrhuje složitější soustavy čoček a svůj mikroskop. Les Météores je pokusem o většinou mechanické vysvětlení různých jevů v ovzduší, mraků, deště, duhy a podobně.
 Psychologie
 Descartovy Vášně duše jsou pokusem o soustavný výklad „pohybů“ lidské duše. Na rozdíl od starší, aristotelské psychologie, která pokládala duši za princip života a přisuzovala ji tedy i rostlinám a živočichům, připisuje Descartes duši hlavně intelektuální schopnosti a pokládá ji za výsadu člověka. Duše se neřídí fyzikálními zákony (například působí pohyby), a je tedy odlišnou substancí; s tělem je ovšem těsně spojena a působí na ně prostřednictvím mozkové šišinky.
 Život a chování živočichů vysvětluje Descartes mechanicky, stejně jako fungování lidského těla: krevní oběh i dýchání je ochlazování a ohřívání krve a dalších tělesných tekutin.
 Zabývá se afekty – „vášněmi“: rozlišuje 6 základních: údiv, touhu, smutek, radost, lásku, nenávist a od nich odvozuje cca 40 dalších. Například naděje je kombinací radosti a touhy – duše věří, že se stane to, po čem touží. Většina afektů je podle něj vyvolávána podněty přicházejícími z těla. Je přesvědčen, že škodlivé silné afekty lze potlačit pomocí vůle.
 Odkazy
 Reference
 Literatura
 Dílo v češtině
 Rozprava o metodě. Přeložila Věra Szathmáryová-Vlčková ; doslov a poznámky Jan Patočka. Jan Laichter, Praha 1933
 Dopisy Alžbětě Falcké. Přel. Petr Horák. Brno 1997
 Meditace o první filosofii. Námitky a autorovy odpovědi. Přeložili a poznámkami opatřili Petr Glombíček, Tomáš Marvan a Pavel Zavadil. OIKOYMENH, Praha 2003
 Meditationes de prima philosophia = Meditace o první filosofii. Přeložili a poznámkami opatřili Petr Glombíček a Tomáš Marvan. OIKOYMENH, Praha 2001
 Regulae ad directionem ingenii = Pravidla pro vedení rozumu. Přel. Vojtěch Balík. OIKOYMENH, Praha 2000
 Rozprava o metodě. Přeložila Věra Szathmáryová-Vlčková ; doslov a poznámky Jan Patočka. Svoboda, Praha 1992
 Principy filosofie: výbor doplněný dvěma Descartovými dopisy princezně Alžbětě Falcké. 2., opr. vyd. Praha: Filosofia, 1998.
 Vášně duše. Přel. Ondřej Švec. Mladá fronta, Praha 2002
 La Dioptrique = Dioptrika. Souběžné francouzské a české vydání s komentářem překladatele Jiřího Fialy. OIKOYMENH, Praha 2010
 Geometrie. Přel. Jiří Fiala. OIKOYMENH, Praha 2010.
 O Descartovi
 E. Husserl: Karteziánské meditace. Praha 1993
 A. Koyré: Rozhovory nad Descartem. Praha 2006
 Filosofické dílo René Descartesa. (Sborník z konference) Praha 1998
 S. Sousedík: René Descartes a české baroko. Praha 1996
 J. Bečvář: René Descartes. Milovník rozumu. Praha 1998
 A. Novák: Zázračná věda: filosofie René Descartesa 1618–1620. Praha 2013
 H. J. Störig, Malé dějiny filosofie. Praha: Zvon 1996.
 R. Zika: René Descartes. Metafyzika lidského dobra. Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Filozofická fakulta, 2010.
 Související články
 Novověká filosofie
 Racionalismus
 Cogito ergo sum
 Kartézská soustava souřadnic
 Externí odkazy
 anglicky
 Regulae, Rozprava a Meditace – en
 More easily readable versions of Meditations, Discourse on the Method, and the Objections to the Meditations and Descartes's Replies.
 Discourse on the Method – na Project Gutenberg
 Selections from the Principles of Philosophy – na Project Gutenberg
 Detailed biography of Descartes
 Mathematical Contributions by René Descartes na Mathworld.Wolfram.com
 The Rationalists Web Portál, texty, bibliografie a linky
 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Rene Descartes
 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 Descartes's Epistemology
 Descartes's Ethics
 Descartes's Life and Works
 Descartes's Modal Metaphysics
 Descartes's Ontological Argument
 Descartes and the Pineal Gland
 Descartes's Physics
 Descartes's Theory of Ideas
 francouzsky
 Portál – texty a linky – fr
 Většina díla – fr
 Descartesovo muzeum
 latinsky
 Regulae, Meditationes a Principia – la
 česky
 Analytická geometrie – různé pohledy na tentýž problém: http://userweb.pedf.cuni.cz/kmdm/...
 Francouzští filozofové
 Francouzští matematici
 Francouzští fyzici
 Křesťanští filozofové
 Katoličtí filozofové
 Filozofové 17. století
 Matematici 17. století
 Francouzské osobnosti 17. století
 Osobnosti na francouzských bankovkách
 Novověcí filozofové
 Novověká filozofie
 Francouzští křesťané
 Narození 31. března
 Narození 1596
 Úmrtí 11. února
 Úmrtí 1650
 Úmrtí ve Stockholmu
 Pohřbení v klášteře Saint-Germain-des-Prés
 Zemřelí na zápal plic
 Muži


text:
Το συρματόσχοινο ή χαλύβδινο καλώδιο είναι είδος σχοινιού κατασκευασμένο από περιελιγμένα σύρματα.
 Κατασκευή
 Τα συρματόσχοινα (wire ropes) κατασκευάζονται από γαλβανισμένα χαλύβδινα σύρματα μεγάλης αντοχής (130 εως 180 Kp/mm2).
 Πολλά σύρματα αφού τυλιχθούν ελικοειδώς γύρω από κεντρικό πυρήνα, τη λεγόμενη "μήτρα", που είναι από κεδρωτό καννάβινο σχοινί, σχηματίζουν δέσμες που λέγονται "έμβολα" ή κλώνοι. Ο αριθμός των συρμάτων σε κάθε έμβολο ποικίλλει (7, 12, 19, 24, 30, 37 και 61). Πολλές δέσμες, έμβολα, συνήθως 6 (εως 8) αφού ελιχθούν πάλι γύρω από ένα κεδρωτό καννάβινο σχοινί, λεγόμενη "μήτρα εμβόλων", σχηματίζουν το πολύκλωνο καλώδιο το γνωστό συρματόσχοινο. Κατασκευάζονται συρματόσχοινα και με 7 ή 8 έμβολα σπάνια όμως με 9. Η "μήτρα εμβόλων" δεν αυξάνει την αντοχή, αλλά συντελεί στην ευλυγισία, τη διατήρηση του σχήματος και τη λίπανση του συρματοσχοίνου. Όσα περισσότερα σύρματα αποτελούν το έμβολο τόσο πιο ευλύγιστο είναι το συρματόσχοινο. Ανάλογα με την φορά περιστροφής των δεσμών διακρίνουμε δεξιόστροφα και αριστερόστροφα συρματόσχοινα. Το πάχος των συρμάτων κυμαίνεται από 0,4 mm ως 2,4 mm για λόγους ευκαμψίας του καλωδίου. Η μήτρα των εμβόλων μπορεί να είναι και απο άλλη φυτική ή συνθετική ύλη.
 Κατά την κατασκευή των συρματοσχοίνων ακολουθούνται τρεις τρόποι:
 α) Όπως και στα σχοινιά, τα σύρματα στρίβονται προς τ ́ αριστερά και τα συγκροτούμενα έμβολα προς τα δεξιά για τα δεξιόστροφα συρματόσχοινα, εν προκειμένω η αριστερόστροφη αυτή κατασκευή είναι η πλέον διαδεδομένη.
 β) Τόσο τα σύρματα όσο και τα συγκροτούμενα εξ αυτών έμβολα στρίβονται προς την αυτή φορά δηλαδή προς τα δεξιά ή προς τ ́ αριστερά και
 γ) Κάθε έμβολο συστρέφεται σπειροειδώς εκ των προτέρων πριν συνδεθεί με τα άλλα έμβολα για τη συγκρότηση του συρματοσχοίνου.
 Πλεονεκτήματα
 Το κυριότερο πλεονέκτημα των συρματόσχοινων έναντι των σχοινιών είναι η μεγάλη αντοχή τους. Στην αυτή διάμετρο, το συρματόσχοινο έχει εξαπλάσια και πλέον αντοχή από το σχοινί. Ακόμη φθείρεται βραδυτερα και όταν συντηρείται καλά διατηρείται σε χρήση επί μακρόν. Σε αντίθεση όμως το συρματόσχοινο έχει μικρή ευκαμψία και ελαστικότητα. Πριν τη θραύση τους (κοπή τους) τα σχοινιά μπορεί να επιμηκυνθούν κατά 15 έως 20%, ενώ τα συρματόσχοινα μόλις 1-2%. Συνεπώς οι απότομες τάσεις (σκροτσαρίσματα) είναι περισσότερο επικίνδυνες στα συρματόσχοινα.
 Τα συρματόσχοινα πλεονεκτούν των αλυσίδων, γιατί παρουσιάζουν αθόρυβη λειτουργία, παρέχουν μεγαλύτερη ασφάλεια από απότομες θραύσεις, επιτρέπουν μεγαλύτερες ταχύτητες εργασίας και έχουν μικρότερο ίδιο βάρος.
 Ευκαμψία
 Μια πολύτιμη ιδιότητα που πρέπει να έχουν τα συρματόσχοινα, είναι η ευκαμψία, για να είναι εύκολη η περιελιξή τους στις τροχαλίες και τα τύμπανα. Η ευκαμψία των συρματόσχοινων εξαρτάται κυρίως από το πάχος των συρμάτων και ειναι τόσο μεγαλύτερη, όσο τα σύρματα είναι λεπτότερα. Δεν είναι όμως δυνατή η χρησιμοποίηση πολύ λεπτών συρμάτων, γιατί αυτά φθείρονται ταχύτερα από τις τριβές και την οξείδωση, ενώ παράλληλα αυξάνουν το κόστος της κατασκευής. Εκτός από αυτό, η ευκαμψία των συρματόσχοινων εξαρτάται και από τον αριθμό των δεσμών και τον τρόπο του πλεξίματός τους. Διευκολύνεται πολύ από την ύπαρξη της φυτικής "μήτρας" που αποτελεί τον πυρήνα του καλωδίου.
 Η μικρή ή μεγάλη ευκαμψία ενός συρματόσχοινου εκδηλώνεται κατά την περιελιξή του σε τύμπανο ή τροχαλία. Όσο η διάμετρος του τυμπάνου ή της τροχαλίας D είναι μεγαλύτερη από τη δίαμετρο του συρματόσχοινου d, δηλαδή όσο ο συντελεστής περιελίξεως ω = D/d είναι μεγαλύτερος, τόσο η χρήση του συρματόσχοινου είναι ευκολότερη και η διάρκεια της ζωής του μεγαλύτερη. Η κατασκευή όμως τροχαλιών και τυμπάνων με μεγάλη διάμετρο αυξάνει το βάρος και το κόστος.
 Είδη συρματόσχοινων
 Οι βασικοί τύποι συρματόσχοινων είναι οι ακόλουθοι:
 Δύσκαμπτα συρματόσχοινα (non flexible wire ropes), φέρουν 7 σύρματα/έμβολο, χρησιμοποιούνται συνήθως στον εξαρτισμό των πλοίων.
 Εύκαμπτα συρματόσχοινα (flexible wire ropes), με 12 ή 19 σύρματα/έμβολο.
 Λίαν εύκαμπτα συρματόσχοινα (extra flexible wire ropes), με 24, 30 ή 37 σύρματα/έμβολο.
 Ειδικά λίαν εύκαμπτα συρματόσχοινα (special extra flexible wire ropes), με 37 ή 61 σύρματα/έμβολο. Σ ́ αυτή τη κατηγορία ανήκουν τα βαρειάς εργασίας συρματόσχοινα όπως τα "ρυμούλκια συρματόσχοινα" που χρησιμοποιούν τα ναυαγοσωστικά και τα ρυμουλκά.
 Στο εμπόριο τα συρματόσχοινα ονομάζονται επίσης και από τον αριθμό των εμβόλων επί των συρμάτων που απαρτίζεται έκαστο π.χ. συρματόσχοινο "7Χ24", δηλαδή ένα λίαν εύκαμπτο συρματόσχοινο.
 Συντήρηση συρματόσχοινων
 Για την προστασία τους από την υγρασία λαμβάνεται πρόνοια ώστε τά σύρματα τους να είναι γαλβανισμένα. Με τον χρόνο όμως η γαλβάνωση φθείρεται και τα σύρματα προσβάλλονται από σκουριά. Γι αυτό απαραίτητη είναι η επάλειψή τους με αντισκωριακά ελαιώδη παρασκευάσματα όπως είναι το ιχθυέλαιο (ψαρόλαδο) η χρήση του οποίου είναι συνήθης στα πλοία λόγω της μεγάλης διαποτιστικής του ικανότητας. Πριν βέβαια της επάλειψης γίνεται καθαρισμός με συρματόβουρτσα (συρμάτινη ψήκτρα) για την απομάκρυνση της σκουριάς (σκωρίας) και ξένων υλών.
 Η "φίμωση" των άκρων των συρματόσχοινων καθίσταται αναγκαία και μάλιστα πρέπει να είναι πολύ ισχυρή. Αν πρόκειται να κοπεί ένα συρματόσχοινο θα πρέπει προηγουμένως να φιμωθούν τα σημεία ανάμεσα των οποίων θα γίνει η κοπή. Διαφορετικά τα έμβολα θα εκτυλιχθούν και ένα μεγάλο μέρος του συρματόσχοινου θα παραμορφωθεί.
 Τα κοινώς λεγόμενα «ράγουλα» (κάρυα) μέσα από τα οποία περνούν τα συρματόσχοινα θα πρέπει, όπως και στα σχοινιά, να έχουν το κατάλληλο μέγεθος. Ως τέτοιο θεωρείται εκείνο που έχει διάμετρο 6 φορές μεγαλύτερο από τη περιφέρεια του συρματόσχοινου, έτσι ώστε η δια μέσου αυτού υφιστάμενη κάμψη του συρματόσχοινου να είναι ασφαλής. Η ταχύτητα της κίνησης κατά τις φορτω/εκφορτώσεις φθείρουν τα συρματόσχοινα περισσότερο παρά από την ασκούμενη τάση του φορτίου. Συνεπώς προτιμότερη είναι η αύξηση του βάρους, μέσα στα όρια πάντα ασφαλείας, παρά η ταχύτητα.
 Οι συστροφές και οι απότομες αναδιπλώσεις αποτελούν και αυτές φθορά των συρματόσχοινων μεγαλύτερες από εκείνες των σχοινιών γι αυτό και πρέπει ν ́ αποφεύγονται διότι εκτός της φθοράς καθίστανται αργότερα δύσχρηστα. Τέλος τα διάφορα απότομα "τινάγματα" εκτός του ότι μπορούν να "κόψουν" τα συρματόσχοινα καταστρέφουν γρήγορα τη συνοχή και μειώνουν την αντοχή τους. Αυτά αποφεύγονται αν οι όποιες τάσεις σ ́ αυτά ασκούνται ομαλά.
 Ειδικότερα τα συρματόσχοινα πλοίων που δεν χρησιμοποιούνται κατά περίσταση θα πρέπει να αποθηκεύονται προς αποφυγή της επίδρασης της θάλασσας και του καιρού. Όσα δε παραμένουν στο κατάστρωμα όπως π.χ. σύρματα καθαίρεσης λέμβων, βυθομέτρου κ.ά. θα πρέπει κατά την περιέλιξή τους στις ανέμες να καλύπτονται με γράσο και οι ανέμες να καλύπτονται με μουσαμάδες. Οποιαδήποτε χειρωνακτική εργασία με συρματόσχοινα πρέπει να γίνεται πάντα με ειδικά βιομηχανικά γάντια.
 Γενικός κανόνας: Όταν παρατηρηθεί σε κάποιο συρματόσχοινο να φέρει κομμένα σύρματα εμβόλων του θα πρέπει αμέσως τούτο να καταδικάζεται σε αχρηστία και να αντικαθίσταται.
 Επιθεώρηση Δοκιμή
 Η επιθεώρηση των συρματόσχοινων σκοπό έχει να διαπιστώσει τυχόν καταστρεμμένα έμβολα ή σύρματα και την κατάσταση της μήτρας, την εν γένει φθορά λόγω υγρασίας ή σκουριάς.
 Ένα δοκιμαστικό τεμάχιο από το πλέον φθαρμένο τμήμα του συρματόσχοινου υποβάλλεται σε δοκιμή μέχρι θραύσης του προκειμένου να διαπιστωθεί η αντοχή του. Διαφορετικά η δοκιμή αρκείται μέχρι το ήμισυ του φορτίου θραύσης. Αν όμως θεωρηθεί αναγκαίο η δοκιμή συνεχίζεται και στα μεμονωμένα έμβολα και στα σύρματα του.
 Μηχανολογία