jurisdiction: US

text: b'U. S. Department of Agriculture\n\n Office of Inspector General\n\n Audit Report\n\n\n\n\n Food and Nutrition Service\nChild and Adult Care Food Program\n Quality of Audit Work\nCalifornia Department of Education\n\n\n\n\n Audit Report No.\n 27601-9-SF\n August 1999\n\x0c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Western Region - Audit\n 600 Harrison Street, Suite 225\n San Francisco, California 94107-1370\n TEL: 415-744-2851 FAX: 415-744-2871\n\n\n\nDATE: August 5, 1999\n\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF: 27601-9-SF\n\nSUBJECT: Child and Adult Care Food Program\n Quality of Audit Work\n California Department of Education\n\nTO: Allen Ng\n Regional Administrator\n Western Region\n Food and Nutrition Service\n\nATTN: James Nordin\n Director\n Financial Management\n\nThis report presents the results of our audit of the Quality of Audit Work performed by the\nCalifornia Department of Education during reviews of the Child and Adult Care Food\nProgram. Your written response to the draft report is included as exhibit C to the report.\nFor acceptance of your management decisions on the report\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations, please\nprovide the information described in the OIG Position sections of the report.\n\nIn accordance with Departmental Regulations 1720-1, please furnish a reply within 60\ndays describing the corrective action taken or planned and the timeframes for\nimplementation of these recommendations. Please note that the regulation requires a\nmanagement decision to be reached on all findings and recommendations within a\nmaximum of 6 months from report issuance.\n\nThe Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), U.S. Department of Agriculture, has\nresponsibility for monitoring and tracking final action for the findings and\nrecommendations. Follow your internal agency procedures in forwarding final action\ncorrespondence to OCFO.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by your audit staff during our\naudit.\n\n\n\n\nSAM W. CURRIE\nRegional Inspector General\n for Audit\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE\nCHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM\n QUALITY OF AUDIT WORK\nCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\n AUDIT REPORT NO. 27601-9-SF\n\n\n This is the third State-level audit report\n PURPOSE issued as part of our audit of the Child\n and Adult Care Food Program\n (CACFP) in California. The first report\n summarized the serious problems disclosed in our audits of CACFP\n sponsors in California and evaluated why the California Department\n of Education\xe2\x80\x99s (CDE) oversight function had not recognized these\n problems. The second report discussed the problems we found in\n the way CDE used Federal funds that were intended to provide\n audits of CACFP sponsors in California. In this, the third report, we\n evaluated the quality of audits of CACFP sponsors administered by\n CDE.\n\n Federal regulations require a State agency to provide sufficient\n personnel to administer the program. The administration of the\n CACFP includes conducting audits and administrative reviews of\n sponsors, centers, and providers participating in the program. In\n California, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Western Regional\n Office administers the CACFP through an agreement with CDE.\n Within CDE, the audits are conducted by the External Audit Unit.\n\n California has the largest CACFP program in the Nation. The U. S.\n Department of Agriculture (USDA) annually provides to CDE\n approximately $16.9 million to administer the CACFP.\n\n As of April 12, 1999, we have also issued seven audit reports on\n individual sponsors participating in the CACFP in California. We\n have two additional sponsor reports in process.\n\n\n\n\n -i-\n\x0c We concluded that sponsor audits\n RESULTS IN BRIEF were not performed and completed in\n a timely manner and that deficiencies\n in the audit process affected the\n quality of the audit work.\n\n The CDE did not complete all required program-specific CACFP\n audits in a timely manner. Managers routinely left audits\n unassigned. Since FY 1994-1995, the number of uncompleted\n audits has steadily grown, rising to 77 percent of the total required\n audits in FY 1996-1997. For those audits that were completed,\n including CPA audits performed under contract, the audit process\n showed several deficiencies:\n\n CDE audits did not follow Government auditing standards.\n Auditors did not pursue material discrepancies, and their\n workpapers did not adequately support their conclusions.\n\n The quality control system for CPA audits was deficient. Reviews\n of CPA audits did not examine the CPAs\xe2\x80\x99 workpapers for\n sufficiency. Workpapers for two of the five CPA audits we\n selected for review showed substandard work.\n\n Resolution of audit findings was inadequate. Actions were\n taken only on monetary findings and audit files were closed\n once these actions were implemented.\n\n In our opinion, the substandard audits, a deficient quality control\n system, and inadequate resolution of audit findings contributed to\n significant program abuses by the sponsors. All 10 of the sponsors\n we reviewed in California were seriously deficient in their operations.\n Seven have been or are being investigated for program fraud. To\n date, 4 of the 10 sponsors have been terminated from the program.\n Details of these audits are presented in audit reports issued for each\n sponsor and are summarized in our report of CDE\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of\n CACFP sponsors (audit report 27601-6-SF).\n\n We recommend that FNS require CDE\nKEY RECOMMENDATIONS to implement a system to ensure that\n audits are completed and\n discrepancies resolved in a timely\n manner. CDE should also implement a quality control process to\n ensure that audits meet Government auditing standards.\n\n\n\n - ii -\n\x0c In its July 27, 1999, written response\nAGENCY POSITION to the official draft report, FNS agreed\n with our audit results and\n recommendations. The response is\n incorporated, along with our position, in the Findings and\n Recommendations section of this report. The full text of FNS\xe2\x80\x99\n response is included as exhibit C.\n\n\n\n\n - iii -\n\x0cTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i\n\n\nINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1\n BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1\n\n OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2\n\n SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3\n\n METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3\n\n\n\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5\n\nI. SPONSOR AUDITS WERE NOT PERFORMED AND COMPLETED\n IN A TIMELY MANNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5\n\n Finding No. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5\n\n Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11\n\nII.DEFICIENCIES IN THE AUDIT PROCESS AFFECTED THE\n QUALITY OF AUDITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13\n\n Finding No. 2 - CDE Audits Did Not Meet Government\n Auditing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13\n\n Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26\n\n Finding No. 3 - Quality Control System Over CPA Audits\n Was Deficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30\n\n\n\n\n - iv -\n\x0c Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32\n\n Finding No. 4 - Audit Followup Was Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32\n\n Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34\n\n\nEXHIBITS\n A- LOCATIONS VISITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36\n\n B- CDE AUDIT DEFICIENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37\n\n C- FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICES\xe2\x80\x99 WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE\n DRAFT REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0\n\n\n\nFIGURES\n 1 - Number of Audits Completed (CACFP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7\n\n 2 - Number of Audits Not Completed (CACFP) by Assignment . . . . . . . . . 8\n\n 3 - Authorized and Expended Audit Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9\n\n\n\n\n -v-\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n\n The Child and Adult Care Food\n BACKGROUND Program (CACFP) is designed to\n ensure that children and senior citizens\n in day care facilities receive nutritious\n meals. Program funding nationwide for fiscal year 1996 was\n $1.58 billion. For fiscal year 1997, the appropriation was increased\n by about 10 percent to $1.74 billion.\n\n The program is administered at the Federal level by the Food and\n Nutrition Service (FNS) and at the State level by a State agency,\n except in Virginia, where it is directly administered by FNS. State\n agencies administer their programs through public or nonprofit\n sponsoring organizations which act as a liaison between the State\n agency and participating day care facilities. Sponsors are ultimately\n responsible for program operations in those facilities.\n\n Day care facilities participating in the program receive reimbursement\n for meals meeting specified nutritional requirements. Facilities\n eligible to participate include day care homes (homes) or child care\n centers (centers). A home is a day care facility located in a private\n residence. The operator of the home is referred to as the "provider."\n A child care center is operated by a public or private nonprofit\n organization, is licensed to provide child care, and primarily serves\n pre-school children. Homes and centers must be licensed by a State\n or local licensing authority.\n\n Under Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 226.4(h), funding\n is authorized to States specifically for the purpose of conducting\n audits and administrative reviews of institutions. These funds are\n designated to pay the cost of required organizationwide or program-\n specific audits of institutions. Title 7 CFR 226.6(l) also specifies that\n State agencies perform administrative reviews of sponsors on a\n periodic basis.\n\n CDE has the responsibility to monitor the CACFP on behalf of FNS.\n Within CDE, the External Audits Unit, Field Services Unit, and\n Programs Unit are all involved in the monitoring process. The\n External Audit Unit conducts audits to determine sponsor\xe2\x80\x99s\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 1\n\x0c compliance with program requirements; the Field Services Unit\n performs administrative reviews to verify the sponsor\xe2\x80\x99s latest meal\n claim reimbursement and review the most current month of\n operations; and the Programs Unit interacts with sponsors on a daily\n basis, provides technical assistance, and has the authority to take\n administrative action against a sponsor.\n\n CDE also reviews independent audits of sponsors conducted by CPA\n firms in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget\n Circulars A-133 and A-128.\n\n Administrative reviews and audits conducted by CDE examine some\n of the same program compliance areas. An administrative review\n evaluates eligibility and meal requirement compliance. However, an\n audit is performed in accordance with Government auditing\n standards (GAS) and is much larger in scope than an administrative\n review.\n\n The funding to each State agency for a fiscal year is based on 2\n percent of the State\xe2\x80\x99s CACFP reimbursement (excluding State\n administrative expense funds) provided to institutions during the\n second preceding fiscal year.1 FNS grants these audit funds to\n defray the expense of conducting audits and administrative reviews.\n In fiscal year 1997, $17.1 million of 2 percent funds were expended\n nationwide. Of that total, approximately $2.4 million was expended\n by the California Department of Education (CDE).\n\n Our audit objectives were to (1)\n OBJECTIVES determine whether the quality of audits\n of sponsoring institutions are sufficient\n to prevent, identify, and correct the\n types of abuses found during our audits; and (2) determine why\n funds authorized for audits and reviews remain unexpended at fiscal\n year end in light of the weaknesses identified by our prior audits of\n sponsors.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Effective October 1, 1998, Public Law 105-336 reduced this amount to 1.5 percent.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 2\n\x0c We judgmentally selected for\n SCOPE examination audits conducted by CDE\n during fiscal years 1996 and 1997.\n Based on our analysis, we expanded\n our examination to include five audits performed by CDE and five\n audits of sponsors performed by CPA\xe2\x80\x99s.\n\n The five audits performed by CDE which we reviewed were Aladdin\n Child Care Services, CF Services, Crossroads Child Care Services,\n Friends Educational Child Care Services, and Monterey Bay Agency.\n The five audits performed by CPAs which we selected for review\n were Children\xe2\x80\x99s Spectrum, Community Business Improvement\n Association, FRAMAX, Pacific Enrichment Incorporated, and Pacific\n Asian American Family Day Care.\n\n Audit work was performed from October 1997 through November\n 1998 at the FNS Western Regional Office in San Francisco,\n California; at the CDE in Sacramento, California; and at certified\n public accountant offices in Los Angeles, Modesto, and Beverly Hills,\n California. We also interviewed officials at the Bureau of State\n Audits, Sacramento, California (see exhibit A for a listing of audit\n sites).\n\n We judgmentally selected CDE audit reports for five sponsors to\n determine if CDE complied with audit requirements and issued its\n reports in a timely manner.\n\n The audit was conducted in accordance with the U.S. General\n Accounting Offices\xe2\x80\x99 (GAO) "Government Auditing Standards (1994\n Revision)."\n\n To accomplish our objectives and\n METHODOLOGY support our findings, we performed the\n following steps:\n\n\n At the FNS Western Regional Office, we reviewed (1) procedures\n and guidance provided to CDE, (2) Office of Management and\n Budget (OMB) Circular A-128 audits to identify previous issues,\n and (3) management evaluations to determine if FNS adequately\n monitored CDE expenditures and followed up on reported\n deficiencies.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 3\n\x0c At the CDE, we reviewed yearend financial reports and\n determined the appropriateness of 2 percent fund expenditures.\n We sampled personnel costs and other administrative costs to\n determine if they were allowable and supportable.\n\n We examined audit reports and workpapers to determine if audits\n were conducted in accordance with GAO "Government Auditing\n Standards (1994 Revision)."\n\n We compiled a data base of the audits that were performed for\n program years 1994 through 1997. We performed an analysis of\n this information to determine if the audits were completed and\n issued in a timely manner.\n\n We interviewed officials at the Bureau of State Audits to\n determine if it performed any audits of State agency monitoring.\n We also reviewed California\xe2\x80\x99s Single Audit Report for the period\n of 1992 through 1996.\n\n At the offices of certified public accountants, we examined audit\n reports and workpapers to determine if they were conducted in\n accordance with GAO "Government Auditing Standards (1994\n Revision)."\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 4\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\n I. SPONSOR AUDITS WERE NOT PERFORMED AND\n COMPLETED IN A TIMELY MANNER\n\n\n For program years 1994-1995, 1995-\n FINDING NO. 1 1996 and 1996-1997, required\n program-specific CACFP audits were\n not performed or completed in a timely\n manner. CDE had an inadequate system to track its audits, and\n auditors who could have performed program-specific CACFP audits\n were frequently reassigned to complete Child Development Division\n audits (CDD). As a result, CDE did not meet its CACFP oversight\n requirements.\n\n For effective program oversight, regulations require independent\n audits at the sponsor level that are conducted in accordance with the\n Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-133 and A-1282.\n Prior to June 30, 1996, OMB Circular A-133 required that\n subrecipients who received Federal awards totaling $25,000 or more\n obtain an audit. For audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30,\n 1996, the audit threshold was raised to $300,000. The audits must\n be performed at least biennially and must cover each year\xe2\x80\x99s\n activities.\n\n Regulations also state that "the audit report shall be due within 30\n days after the completion of the audit. The audit should be\n completed and the report submitted no later than 13 months after the\n end of the recipient\xe2\x80\x99s fiscal year unless a longer period is agreed to\n with the cognizant or oversight agency."3 Additionally, Government\n\n\n\n\n 2\n 7 CFR 226.8(a), dated January 1, 1995.\n 3\n OMB Circular A-133, paragraph 15(h), dated March 8, 1990.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 5\n\x0c auditing standards state, "... audit reports should be distributed in a\n timely manner to officials interested in the results."4\n\n CDE has overall responsibility for ensuring that all required program-\n specific CACFP audits are properly performed in accordance with\n regulatory requirements. The staff is also responsible for ensuring\n that all audits meet applicable standards, and for tracking audit\n findings and recommendations to ensure corrective actions are taken\n (questioned costs are recovered, internal control weaknesses are\n corrected, etc.).\n\n FNS grants audit funds to defray the expense of conducting audits\n and administrative reviews. These funds total 2 percent of the\n State\xe2\x80\x99s program expenditures. FNS has stated that the purpose for\n the allocation of 2-percent funds is "to complete the state\xe2\x80\x99s\n requirement to conduct and review audits required under OMB\n Circular A-133" and that "the state\xe2\x80\x99s utmost priority must be to\n complete its audit workload."5\n\n A total of 56 required program-specific CACFP audits were to be\n performed for the 1996-1997 program year. However, we found no\n evidence that audits were completed for 43 of these sponsors, or 77\n percent. Similarly, a total of 118 required program-specific CACFP\n audits were to be performed for the 1995-1996 program year, but we\n found no evidence that audits were completed for 78 of these\n sponsors, or 66 percent. And a total of 122 required program-specific\n CACFP audits were to be performed for the 1994-1995 program\n year, with no evidence that audits were completed for 68 of these\n sponsors, or 56 percent (see figure 1).\n\n\n\n\n 4\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 5.33.\n 5\n October 14, 1998, letter from FNS Western Region to all Western Region State Child Nutrition\nProgram Directors.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 6\n\x0c Program Required Required Percent\n Year Program- Program-Specific Completed\n Specific CACFP Audits\n CACFP Audits\n\n\n 1996-97 56 13 23%\n 1995-96 118 40 34%\n 1994-95 122 54 44%\n Figure 1\n\n The audit manager told us he assigned some of the required CACFP\n program-specific audits to his staff. Required audits not assigned to\n audit staff were to be completed by a CPA. We determined that 31\n out of 43 audits that were not completed were never assigned by the\n audit manager to be performed by CDE staff or a CPA for the 1996-\n 1997 program year. For the 1995-1996 program year, 48 out of 78\n audits not completed were also never assigned to CDE audit staff or\n a CPA for completion. Additionally, in the 1994-1995 program year,\n 61 out of 68 audits were never assigned for completion (see figure\n 2).\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 7\n\x0c Figure 2\n\n\n We found no evidence that any of these unassigned sponsors had\n an audit during the 3-year time period. Federal funds paid to these\n sponsors amounted to $24.6 million in 1996-1997, $1.9 million in\n 1995-1996, and $7.8 million in 1994-1995.\n\n For the 1994-1995 and 1996-1997 program years, CDE audit staff\n were not assigned to complete any CACFP audits. For the\n 1995-1996 program year, the CDE audit staff were assigned 20\n audits. We determined CDE completed only one audit that year.\n This audit was the Aladdin report, which we determined did not meet\n Government auditing standards (see Finding No. 2).\n\n Also, CDE did not always complete its CACFP audits including CPA\n contracted audits within the 13-month timeframe. OMB Circular A-\n 133 states that the audit shall be completed 30 days after the receipt\n of the audit report, or 13 months after the end of the audit period.\n\n FNS paid CDE about $10.1 million for the completion of audits of day\n care home sponsors, child care centers, and adult care centers\n during this 3-year period. However, over $3 million (30 percent) was\n not expended and could have been utilized to conduct or contract for\n the audits of sponsors which had not been completed (see figure 3).\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 8\n\x0c Audit Funds\n Remaining\n FY Authorized Expended Percent\n Balance\n 1998 $ 3,580,139 $2,542,189 $1,037,950 29%\n 1997 $ 3,374,849 $2,379,399 $ 995,450 29%\n 1996 $ 3,176,713 $2,171,874 $1,004,839 32%\n TOTAL $10,101,701 $7,080,913 $3,020,788 30%\n Figure 3\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for the underutilization of funds was that the funds\n could not be used to hire any new auditors, due to a lengthy hiring\n process. Additionally, CDE could not use the funds for the purchase\n of needed computers and office equipment. CDE officials believed\n that the addition of six new audit positions on July 1, 1997, and the\n submission of budget change proposals (in conjunction with the CDD\n audits) for six more positions would improve program monitoring\n operations.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s failure to complete CACFP audits in a timely manner has\n been reported before. OIG reported on the backlog of CACFP audits\n in its April 1998 Management Alert and FNS commented on the large\n backlog of unreviewed CPA audits in its March 1995 Management\n Evaluation. Also, the California Bureau of State Audits (BSA)\n reported for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1995, that CDE lacked\n a tracking system to monitor the audit reports for the nutrition\n programs that it monitored.\n\n In the FNS Regional Office\xe2\x80\x99s July 1998 Management Evaluation,\n FNS reported that 51 percent of CACFP audits had a duration of\n over 13 months. FNS also reported on the large backlog of\n unreviewed CPA audits and on an ineffective tracking system.\n\n CDE assured both the BSA and FNS that it had taken steps to\n correct these conditions. In it\xe2\x80\x99s response to the 1998 Management\n Evaluation, CDE stated that it developed a plan to complete all\n outstanding audits by January 31, 1999, and will complete all 1996-\n 1997 audits according to the new requirements in OMB Circular A-\n 133. CDE also stated that the External Audit Unit had completed\n fieldwork on 14 out of the 20 required 1995-1996 CACFP audits.\n After completion of an internal review and approval process, the\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 9\n\x0c External Audit Unit planned to issue draft reports to agencies in\n September 1998. However, during fieldwork conducted in November\n 1998, we found that these conditions had not been corrected.\n\n CDE officials told us that audits were not completed or performed in\n a timely manner because management made a commitment to\n reduce the backlog of CDD audits. Auditors were reassigned from\n various nutrition program audits to assist in this endeavor. By\n shifting auditors to the CDD audits, CDE did not place a high priority\n on completing the CACFP audits. We determined that it takes CDE\n between 7 to 9 months to complete a review of a CPA-conducted\n audit.\n\n As stated, CDE also did not have an adequate tracking system to\n ensure that audits were completed and performed in a timely\n manner. We determined CDE was using four different systems to\n track the progress of a CACFP audit. However, none of the data\n bases were connected and none tracked the timeliness\n requirements. Clear and concise reports were not generated to give\n management an understanding about the progress of each CACFP\n audit. Only one data base was used to track nonmonetary findings.\n However, this was only recently started in the Field Services Unit\n (Administrative Review) and no reports were ever sent to CDE\n management. The lack of an accurate tracking report directly\n impacted CDE\xe2\x80\x99s ability to efficiently monitor the CACFP program.\n\n We were also unable to determine who was responsible for the\n CACFP program. Managers from different units were responsible for\n various steps within the audit process. However, each unit was run\n independently by a unit manager. Each unit had its own data base,\n and the units did not effectively communicate with each other.\n Under the current management structure, we were unable to\n determine if one individual coordinated or administered the entire\n CACFP program. However, we did determine that the administrator\n of the department did not receive any reports or documentation on\n the progress of the CACFP audits, as outlined in OMB Circular\n A-133.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 10\n\x0c RECOMMENDATION NO. 1a\n\n Instruct CDE to arrange for the performance of the 189 required\n program-specific CACFP audits that have not yet been completed.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation. The response stated that\n FNS received an audit plan from the CDE which provided for the\n completion of the required 189 program-specific CACFP audits.\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to\n complete the required 189 program-specific CACFP audits.\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1b\n\n Instruct CDE to establish and implement an adequate tracking\n system to confirm that it is meeting its audit requirements. The\n tracking system should measure the time requirements as required\n by OMB Circular A-133, track the audit process from beginning to\n end, and create clear and concise reports for CDE management to\n allow them to monitor the progress of the CACFP audits and the\n resolution of audit findings.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation. The response stated that\n FNS has requested implementation of a management accountability\n process by CDE which will incorporate this recommendation.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 11\n\x0c OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to\n establish and implement an adequate tracking system.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1c\n\n Instruct CDE to establish and implement a clear line of authority to\n ensure CACFP audits are completed timely and there is\n accountability for their completion.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to\n establish and implement a clear line of authority to ensure CACFP\n audits are completed timely and there is accountability for their\n completion.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 12\n\x0c II. DEFICIENCIES IN THE AUDIT PROCESS AFFECTED THE\n QUALITY OF AUDITS\n\n\n\n For those audits that CDE had completed, including CPA audits\n performed under contract, deficiencies in CDE\xe2\x80\x99s audit and desk\n review processes affected the performance and quality of the work.\n We found problems in policy and supervision that resulted in\n substandard audit work, deficient oversight of CPA\xe2\x80\x99s, and inadequate\n followup of sponsor deficiencies. We noted several cases in which\n CDE personnel had found evidence of questionable sponsor\n activities but did not pursue the implications of the evidence or follow\n through to correct the deficiency.\n\n Program regulations state that, "Each State agency shall provide\n sufficient consultative, technical and managerial personnel to\n administer the Program...and monitor performance to facilitate\n expansion and effective operation of the Program."6 Regulations\n further state that the State agency shall review sponsor claims\n annually to ensure that all participating child care centers and homes\n are complying with program requirements.7\n\n The CACFP audits conducted by CDE\n FINDING NO. 2 were substandard. The audit work\n contained significant departures from\n Government auditing standards (GAS)\n CDE AUDITS DID NOT MEET in staffing qualifications, workpaper\n GOVERNMENT AUDITING preparation, the audit program, audit\n STANDARDS methodology, audit reporting, and\n supervision, including quality control\n reviews. As a result of the\n substandard work, there was no assurance CACFP audits were free\n of material misstatements.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n 7 CFR 226.6(a), dated January 1, 1995.\n 7\n 7 CFR 226.6(d)(1), dated January 1, 1995.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 13\n\x0c Six principal sources establish audit requirements for State and local\n governments that receive USDA assistance:\n\n The Single Audit Act of 1984.\n OMB Circular A-128.\n Government Auditing Standards.\n Generally Accepted Auditing Standards.\n AICPA Industry Audit and Accounting Guide, Audits of State\n and Local Governmental Units.\n Compliance Supplements for Single Audits of State and Local\n Governments issued by OMB in April 1985, and any\n subsequent revisions.8\n\n All of the requirements must be met by a recipient before an audit\n can be accepted as a Federal audit.9\n\n We judgmentally selected five CACFP audits completed by CDE.\n We selected sponsors who received high dollar reimbursements for\n meal claims or who engaged in practices we found questionable.\n These sponsors were CF Services, Friends Educational Child Care\n Services, Crossroads Child Care Services, Monterey Bay Agency,\n and Aladdin Child Care Services. We reviewed the audit reports,\n supporting workpapers, and audit closure files for each of the audits\n selected.\n\n The CACFP audits contained significant departures from GAS in the\n areas of: audit program, audit workpapers, audit methodology, audit\n report, quality control reviews, and staff qualifications. A detailed\n breakdown of all the deficiencies in each of these audits is located\n in exhibit B.\n\n Audit Program\n\n The CDE audit program (i.e., audit procedures to be followed when\n conducting an audit) should be designed to detect sponsor\n noncompliance. "When laws, regulations, and other compliance\n areas are significant to audit objectives, auditors should design the\n\n\n 8\n 7 CFR 3015.70(a), dated January 14, 1986.\n 9\n 7 CFR 3015.70(b), dated January 14, 1986.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 14\n\x0c audit to provide reasonable assurance about compliance with\n them."10 The CDE audit program was not program-specific and\n was not useful in detecting sponsor abuse.\n\n The CDE audit program used for conducting the CACFP audits was\n used for multiple CDE administered programs. Each of these CDE\n administered programs had different regulations and compliance\n requirements. In all five of the audits we reviewed, we found audit\n steps that were incomplete, skipped by the auditor, or marked as\n nonapplicable without explanation.\n\n Also, some critical audit steps were not included in the audit\n program. For example, the audit program did not include procedures\n for assessing the audit risk, a required audit step.11 In another\n example, auditors did not verify whether the sponsors kept advance\n funds in an interest-bearing account, since this was not an audit\n step. CDE auditors said they were not aware of this compliance\n requirement and agreed that the audit program needed to be\n strengthened and program-specific to the CACFP.12\n\n Government Auditing Standards also require that auditors must\n coordinate their work with other auditors and reviewers. The\n standards state that "auditors should determine if other auditors have\n previously done, or are doing audits of the program or the entity that\n operates it.... [P]erformance audits or financial audits may be useful\n sources of information for planning and performing the audit."13\n Additionally, "auditors face similar considerations when relying on the\n work of nonauditors."14\n\n\n\n\n 10\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 6.26.\n 11\n Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, Section 8.12, dated 1990.\n 12\n OMB Circular A-133, Compliance Supplement, Cash Management section, dated October 1991.\n 13\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 6.14.\n 14\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 6.16.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 15\n\x0c The CACFP audit program developed by CDE required the auditor\n to review and place the most current administrative review report in\n the audit workpapers. Auditors claimed they reviewed the last\n administrative review report, but these reports were not always\n placed in the audit workpapers. Only two of the five CACFP audit\n reports selected for review had the most current administrative\n review report in the workpapers. One audit had the administrative\n review for a different sponsor in the workpapers.\n\n Coordination and communication between the CACFP units prior to\n performing a sponsor audit would enable auditors to focus efforts on\n sponsor problem areas. For example, an administrative review\n finding for a sponsor indicated the sponsor was paying its employees\n 2 to 3 weeks in advance of hours worked, which was unallowable.15\n According to the sponsor, this practice started in 1993. However,\n the audit of this sponsor indicated the sponsor was estimating future\n expenses, but did not elaborate. The supporting workpaper only\n stated the sponsor estimated expenses for sick leave, vacation, and\n training. There was no indication the auditor was aware employees\n were being paid in advance.\n\n Audit Workpapers\n\n We found that CDE auditors\xe2\x80\x99 workpapers did not adequately support\n the auditors\xe2\x80\x99 analyses and conclusions. Also, the study and\n evaluation of the internal control system for each of the audits we\n reviewed was seriously limited. As a result, we question the support\n and accuracy of the conclusions in the audit reports we reviewed.\n\n Conclusions were not adequately supported. According to GAS,\n "Working papers should contain sufficient information to enable an\n experienced auditor having no previous connection with the audit to\n ascertain from them the evidence that supports the auditors\xe2\x80\x99\n significant conclusions and judgments."16\n\n\n\n\n 15\n OMB Circular A-122 6 (l), dated June 27, 1980.\n 16\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 6.46.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 16\n\x0c The audit workpapers did not adequately document the audit work\n for any of the audits that we reviewed. The workpapers did not\n adequately document how evidence was gathered and how the\n analytical and substantive procedures were performed.\n\n For example, the auditors told us they performed a comparative\n analysis of the sponsor\xe2\x80\x99s records to the State-generated records to\n determine discrepancies in the sponsor\xe2\x80\x99s records. However, this\n analysis was not documented in the workpapers. In addition, the\n determination of allowed and disallowed administrative expenses was\n not always documented.\n\n The auditor should document the sampling selection, methodology,\n and procedures performed.17 Most of the workpapers did not\n contain the sample selection and criteria, testing results, or the\n effects of noncompliance. We were unable to determine the\n population of the universe, the sample size, the sampling technique\n used, and the results of tests performed. A description of the\n sample procedures and the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s evaluation of the sample results\n were necessary to understand the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s conclusions.\n\n The workpapers also did not provide a discussion of material\n noncompliance. "In reporting significant instances of noncompliance,\n auditors should place their findings in perspective ... a basis for\n judging the prevalence and consequences of noncompliance."18 In\n the Aladdin, CF Services, and Crossroads audits, the audit reports\n stated material noncompliance, but the reports did not discuss the\n material noncompliance. In addition, the workpapers did not disclose\n the full nature and extent of the noncompliance or their effects.\n\n Evaluation of the internal control system was limited. OMB Circular\n A-128 "requires that the independent auditor determine and report on\n whether the organization has internal control systems ... In order to\n provide this assurance the auditor must make a study and evaluation\n of internal control systems ... The study and evaluation must be\n\n\n\n\n 17\n Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, Section 9.29, dated 1990.\n 18\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 7.28.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 17\n\x0c made whether or not the auditor intends to place reliance on such\n system."19\n\n The internal control questionnaire was the only support for the study\n and evaluation of the internal control system. The questionnaire was\n also used to determine the nature, extent, and timing of the\n substantive testing. However, the questionnaire was limited and did\n not disclose internal control risks and reportable conditions.\n\n The internal control questionnaire had several deficiencies. It was\n poorly worded and ambiguous and consisted mostly of "yes/no"\n responses without any narrative or discussion. The questionnaire\n consisted of inquiries that were never substantiated by testing. The\n auditors did not document an adequate understanding of the\n sponsor\xe2\x80\x99s internal control system to support the internal control\n report, and no test of controls was performed.\n\n Audit Methodology\n\n For the audits that we reviewed, the auditors did not determine audit\n risk or define materiality so as to expand the audit scope when\n necessary.\n\n According to GAS, "In planning tests of compliance with significant\n laws and regulations, auditors assess the risk that illegal acts could\n occur ... [and consider] whether the entity has controls that are\n effective in preventing or detecting illegal acts."20 Also, "The\n auditors should consider materiality, among other matters, in\n determining the nature, timing, and extent of auditing procedures and\n in evaluating the results of those procedures."21\n\n\n\n\n 19\n OMB Circular A-128 (paragraph 8), dated July, 1985.\n 20\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 6.31.\n 21\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 4.6.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 18\n\x0c CDE auditors did not perform a risk analysis, which is a required\n element of an audit.22 The absence of an audit risk assessment\n leaves the audit susceptible to the possibility that illegal acts may\n have occurred without being detected.\n\n We also found that the workpapers for the audits we reviewed did\n not define materiality. According to the CACFP audit manager,\n materiality was determined by the dollar impact based on the total\n funding. However, we found no basis or evidence of this\n determination of materiality in the workpapers. The audit manager\n also stated that auditors would not expand the scope of testing until\n they exceeded a 10-percent error rate or in some cases a 20-percent\n error rate. GAS suggests that auditors set lower materiality levels for\n entities that receive government assistance because of the public\n accountability.23\n\n CDE sample criteria procedures state that auditors are to use\n professional judgment to expand upon the initial sample size. We\n found that CDE auditors did not expand their scope for additional\n testing, even when problems such as missing records were\n discovered. In addition, the auditors did not document or justify their\n reasons for not performing additional testing to determine their effect\n on the audit results as required.24 CDE auditors expanded testing\n for only one audit step of one audit (Crossroads), and that was\n occasioned merely by a math error.\n\n The Aladdin audit demonstrates that materiality was not addressed\n and that audit scope was not duly expanded. Auditors encountered\n many problems in obtaining records from Aladdin. The auditors\n obtained records for only 9 of 36 months and, in order to complete\n the audit work, allowed the sponsor to recreate some of the missing\n records. In addition, the auditors found that 25 of 75 centers did not\n comply with CACFP program requirements. Nevertheless, the\n sponsor received a qualified opinion in the audit report. We believe\n the sponsor should have been terminated if these problems could\n\n 22\n Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, Section 8.12, dated 1990.\n 23\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 4.9.\n 24\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 6.32.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 19\n\x0c not be corrected. Regulations state that the State agency shall\n terminate the program agreement with any institution which it\n determines to be seriously deficient, which includes failure to\n maintain adequate records. However, the State agency shall afford\n an institution every reasonable opportunity to correct problems\n before terminating the institution for being seriously deficient.25\n\n In Aladdin, only 1 of 36 months was tested for the 5-day payment\n disbursement requirement even though one center had already\n informed CDE in writing that reimbursement checks were not\n received. Auditors also discovered that Aladdin had numerous\n bounced checks as a result of insufficient funds, but they did not\n pursue the matter because they claimed Aladdin presented a letter\n from the bank stating it was a bank error. The CACFP audit\n manager said it was the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s judgment that there was no need\n for additional testing. After CDE\xe2\x80\x99s audit, Aladdin went out of\n business as a CACFP sponsor while owing its day care centers\n hundreds of thousands of dollars in food reimbursements.\n\n Audit Report\n\n The purpose of the audit report is to communicate the results of the\n audit in a way that is fair and not misleading.26 The CDE audit\n reports were misleading because reportable conditions were not\n adequately disclosed, the "going-concern" issue was never\n addressed, and audit workpapers did not fully support the audit\n opinion.\n\n Conditions were not adequately disclosed. Government auditors are\n required to report any reportable conditions found in their study and\n evaluation of the internal control system. If the auditor determines\n that the findings are not reportable, he or she should still\n communicate them in writing to the auditee.27\n\n\n\n\n 25\n 7 CFR 226.6 (c), dated January 1, 1995.\n 26\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 7.58.\n 27\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Sections 5.26 and 5.28.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 20\n\x0c In four out of the five audits, the internal control report portion of the\n audit report identified material weaknesses in the internal control\n structure. However, the auditors did not document the weaknesses\n in the workpapers nor did the audit report state the nature and extent\n of the weaknesses. In addition, no test of controls was documented.\n As a result, the report did not address the severity of the material\n weaknesses in the sponsor\xe2\x80\x99s internal control system.\n\n The "going-concern" issue was never addressed. Auditors should\n evaluate the "going-concern" issue when conditions or events are\n discovered that raise substantial doubt concerning the entity\xe2\x80\x99s\n continued existence.28 CDE auditors never addressed this issue.\n The auditors told us the going-concern issue was the responsibility\n of the Audit Closure Unit and Program Unit. However, we\n interviewed officials from those units, and none of the officials knew\n of a potential going-concern problem because the issue was never\n addressed in the audit report.\n\n For example, CDE determined that Aladdin had unauthorized\n expenditures of $111,857 for disallowed administrative costs, which\n were to be paid back to the centers. The audit report also stated that\n Aladdin owed the State $208,160 for overclaimed meals. This\n finding was obtained from reviewing only 9 months of records. If\n fieldwork had been expanded, in all probability it would have shown\n that Aladdin\xe2\x80\x99s liability was much larger, and its ability to reimburse\n the centers and State even more questionable.\n\n In another example of the going-concern issue, CF Services\n maintained a negative cash advance fund balance because it used\n these funds to pay administrative expenses in excess of earned\n reimbursement. The CDE auditors determined that continued use of\n the cash advance restricted the ability of the sponsor to repay CDE.\n\n The auditor\xe2\x80\x99s opinion was not supported by the workpapers or the\n findings in the report. Opinions stated in the audit report about the\n completeness and accuracy of the sponsor\xe2\x80\x99s records must be fully\n supported in the workpapers. "The strength of the auditors\xe2\x80\x99\n conclusions depends on the persuasiveness of the evidence\n\n\n\n 28\n Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, Section 8.56, dated 1990.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 21\n\x0c supporting the findings and the convincingness of the logic used to\n formulate the conclusions."29\n\n In both the CF Services and Aladdin audits, the opinions did not\n agree with the material findings reported. GAS requires auditors to\n report significant constraints imposed on their audit by data limitation\n or scope impairments.30 GAS also notes that "When significant\n scope limitation are imposed by the client, the auditor generally\n should express a disclaimer of opinion."31 In Aladdin, the audit\n opinion was based on the available records, but most of the records\n were unavailable and some of the records reviewed were recreated\n by the sponsor. Therefore, a disclaimer of opinion should have been\n issued.\n\n According to the CACFP audit manager, if the sponsor had some\n records to enable the auditor to derive a dollar figure and make an\n adjustment, the auditors would render an unqualified or qualified\n opinion. If the sponsor had very limited or no records, an adverse\n opinion might be issued. However, the manager claimed the\n qualified opinion was based on the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s "professional judgment."\n\n Quality Control Reviews\n\n Internal quality control reviews (QCR) performed by CDE were\n inadequate, and external quality control reviews of CDE\xe2\x80\x99s QCR\n system were never performed. Each audit organization should have\n an appropriate internal quality control system in place and undergo\n an external quality control review.32\n\n Internal reviews were inadequate. CDE did not have formal written\n procedures for conducting QCRs. The QCR procedures should\n provide reasonable assurance that the CACFP audits met standards\n\n\n 29\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 7.20.\n 30\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 7.14.\n 31\n Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, Section 11.30, dated 1990.\n 32\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 3.31.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 22\n\x0c and followed audit policies and procedures.33 Because of the\n absence of written procedures, CDE\xe2\x80\x99s QCRs focused on the\n accuracy of the dollar amounts listed on the schedules of the audit\n report. The QCRs did not review the quality or completeness of the\n auditor\xe2\x80\x99s work.\n\n According to the CDE official responsible for QCRs, the primary\n focus of the QCR was to review the amount of meals disallowed and\n to determine that the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s meal adjustments were correct. The\n QCRs did not include a review of the entire audit report and the\n supporting workpapers to ensure workpaper accuracy and\n compliance with auditing standards. Only a limited workpaper review\n was conducted and not all references were verified. Another official\n stated that only a few references were ever verified.\n\n In all five audits reviewed, references in the workpapers were\n missing or incorrect, and none of the audit reports were referenced\n to the workpapers. Even the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s schedule of meal claim\n adjustments (dollar reimbursements) were not referenced to the\n supporting analysis in the workpapers. In addition, the workpapers\n contained numerous mistakes and inaccurate data. Workpapers for\n the audit of Friends Educational included the Field Services Report\n for a different sponsor. An adequate internal quality control review\n system should have detected these errors and discrepancies.\n\n External quality control reviews were not performed. One CDE\n official noted that CDE is in the process of establishing an external\n quality control program with the California Association of State\n Auditors, so that an independent third party can review the internal\n quality control system. However, CDE has not scheduled the review\n date.\n\n "Organizations conducting audits in accordance with...[GAS]\n standards should have an external quality control review at least\n once every 3 years by an organization not affiliated with the\n organization being reviewed. The external quality control review\n should determine whether the organization\xe2\x80\x99s internal quality control\n\n\n 33\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 3.32.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 23\n\x0c system is in place and operating effectively to provide reasonable\n assurance that established policies and procedures and applicable\n auditing standards are being followed."34\n\n Staff Supervision\n\n CDE staff auditors were not properly supervised. Their work was not\n reviewed and their performance was not evaluated.\n\n "Staff are to be properly supervised. Supervision involves directing\n the efforts of auditors."35 One of the elements of supervision\n includes reviewing the audit work performed.36\n The CACFP audit manager claimed he performed a limited review of\n the workpapers and the audit report. He stated that he would spot\n check the workpapers and trace some audit steps, review the\n reports\xe2\x80\x99 content, and sign the audit report. However, we found no\n documentation of a supervisory review and no evidence that staff\n auditors\xe2\x80\x99 performance was ever evaluated. An adequate supervisory\n review should have detected and corrected the numerous errors\n found in the workpapers and would have disclosed that additional\n audit work and followup was necessary.\n\n For example, audits performed by CDE for the 1991-1992, 1992-\n 1993, and 1993-1994 program years disclosed that Pacific\n Enrichment Incorporated inflated administrative costs, submitted\n inaccurate meal claims, and used cash advances improperly. These\n findings were repeated annually and included in the audit reports.\n We have referred this sponsor to OIG Investigations for potential\n program fraud.\n\n We believe that an adequate supervisory review would have\n concluded that additional audit work and followup on corrective\n action was necessary. Since the auditor identified serious\n deficiencies, the sponsor should have been put on notice that if the\n\n\n 34\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 3.33.\n 35\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Sections 6.22 and 6.23.\n 36\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 6.23.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 24\n\x0c deficiencies were not corrected, the sponsor would be terminated\n from the program. However, this was never done.\n\n The CACFP audit manager said that his expectations were high; he\n expected quality work from his auditors. He added that he relied\n heavily on the internal QCR\xe2\x80\x99s to detect errors or discrepancies in the\n audit reports and the supporting workpapers. However, inadequate\n supervision of the audits, insufficient review of the workpapers, and\n inadequate QCRs resulted in the issuance of substandard audit\n reports.\n\n Staff Qualifications\n\n "Staff assigned to perform the audit should have knowledge of the\n methods and techniques applicable to government auditing and the\n education skills ... the auditors should be proficient in the appropriate\n accounting principles and in government auditing standards."37\n\n The qualifications for Associate Management Auditor require the\n equivalent to graduation from college with a minimum of six\n semester units of accounting38 and 1 year of experience in the\n State civil service. By contrast, OIG auditors must have a bachelor\xe2\x80\x99s\n degree that includes or is supplemented by 24 semester hours in\n accounting and/or auditing. We believe that a minimum requirement\n of six semester units of accounting for an auditor position was not\n enough accounting curriculum to enable an individual to perform the\n job properly.\n\n For example, State specifications state that an auditor should have\n the ability to "analyze data and take corrective action."39 Our audit\n revealed many instances where the auditors could not effectively\n analyze the sponsor\xe2\x80\x99s condition, determine the cause of findings, or\n recommend corrective action to management. If CDE audits were\n properly conducted with qualified audit staff, the sponsor abuse and\n fraud we found would have been detected earlier.\n\n\n 37\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 3.10(a) and (e)(1).\n 38\n California State Personnel Board specification, dated September 6, 1978.\n 39\n California State Personnel Board specification, dated September 6, 1978.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 25\n\x0c Also, the audit staff did not receive performance evaluations from\n management. Instead, management had the audit staff conduct self-\n evaluations. Management had no effective way to monitor and\n appraise staff to determine if they were adequately performing their\n duties. To ensure quality audit work is performed, an objective\n evaluation should be conducted.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2a\n\n Instruct CDE to develop and implement an audit program that is\n customized to CACFP requirements and includes coordination and\n communication between the CACFP units.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to develop\n and implement an audit program that is customized to CACFP\n requirements and includes coordination and communication between\n the CACFP units.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2b\n\n Instruct CDE to establish and implement a process for management\n to perform supervisory reviews of all audit reports and workpapers.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 26\n\x0c OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to\n establish and implement a process for management to perform\n supervisory review of all audit reports and workpapers.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2c\n\n Instruct CDE to establish and implement an evaluation system so\n management can evaluate an auditor\xe2\x80\x99s performance.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to\n establish and implement an evaluation system so management can\n evaluate and auditor\xe2\x80\x99s performance.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2d\n\n Instruct CDE to provide training in Government Auditing Standards\n to audit staff involved in CACFP audits.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 27\n\x0c OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to provide\n training in Government Auditing Standards to audit staff involved in\n CACFP audits.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2e\n\n Instruct CDE to establish and implement a formal internal quality\n control system and a written quality control review procedures\n manual for their own audits.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to\n establish and implement a formal internal quality control system and\n a written quality control review procedures manual for their own\n audits.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2f\n\n Instruct CDE to establish and implement a system for an external\n quality control review (peer review) to be performed to ensure that\n an internal quality control review system is in place and operating\n effectively, and that the applicable policy and procedures are being\n followed.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 28\n\x0c FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to\n establish and implement a system for an external quality control\n review (peer review) to be performed to ensure that an internal\n quality control review system is in place and operating effectively,\n and that the applicable policy and procedures are being followed.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2g\n\n Instruct CDE to increase staff accounting curriculum requirements for\n new hires to enable the staff to perform the audits properly.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to\n increase staff accounting curriculum requirements for new hires to\n enable the staff to perform the audits properly.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 29\n\x0c CDE\xe2\x80\x99s quality control system for CPA\n FINDING NO. 3 performed audits for CDE was deficient.\n CDE does not have written procedures\n for conducting quality control reviews\n QUALITY CONTROL (QCRs) of these audits. As a result,\n SYSTEM OVER CPA AUDITS there was no assurance that audit\n WAS DEFICIENT reports and the supporting workpapers\n were relatively free of material\n misstatements, and that audits\n performed were in accordance with Government auditing standards.\n\n The internal quality control system established by the audit\n organization should provide reasonable assurance that it (1) has\n adopted and is following applicable auditing standards and (2) has\n established and is following adequate audit policies and\n procedures.40 In addition, all CACFP audits are to be performed in\n accordance with GAS41 and the audit reports for each sponsor state\n that the audit was conducted "in accordance with generally accepted\n auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards (GAS)\n issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (1994\n Revision)."\n\n Prior to 1998, CDE had never performed a QCR of CACFP\n sole-source funding audits completed by CPA\xe2\x80\x99s. The CPA audit\n reports received only a "desk review." CDE desk reviews consisted\n of an examination of the audit report to verify that the required\n components were included. However, desk reviews did not examine\n the supporting workpapers to ensure they met OMB Circular A-133\n requirements and were conducted in accordance with GAS.\n\n The External Audit Unit should have selected audit reports for a QCR\n which would have provided a representative sample of the audits\n completed by CPA\xe2\x80\x99s. The QCR should have included reviews of the\n audit reports, workpapers, and any other necessary documentation,\n as well as interviews with the audit organizations staff. Additionally,\n\n\n\n\n 40\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Section 3.32.\n 41\n 7 CFR 3015.70 (a), dated January 14, 1986.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 30\n\x0c a written report should have been prepared by the External Audit\n Unit communicating the results of the QCR.42\n\n We judgmentally selected five CPA audits of CACFP sponsors based\n either on the size of the sponsor meal claims that the CPA reviewed\n or on concerns by either CDE or OIG. The purpose of our review\n was to determine if the CPA audits were performed in accordance\n with GAS and other applicable regulations.\n\n We examined the workpapers of three of the CACFP audit reports\n performed by CPA\xe2\x80\x99s and determined the reports and corresponding\n workpapers met standards. Prior to our review of the fourth CPA\n selected, the CPA was referred to the California Department of\n Consumer Affairs Division of Investigations by CDE for substandard\n audit work. We took no further action.\n\n For the fifth CPA selected, we determined the CPA did not meet\n Government auditing standards. Specifically, the audit was not\n designed to provide reasonable assurance of sponsor compliance\n with laws and regulations, there was no documentation that the audit\n steps were performed, and workpapers did not contain sufficient\n information to support the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s conclusions and judgments.\n Therefore, we referred this CPA to the American Institute of Certified\n Public Accountants Professional Ethics Division and the California\n Department of Consumer Affairs Division of Investigations for\n substandard audit work.\n\n CDE\xe2\x80\x99s desk reviews only tested the audit reports\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with\n reporting standards and OMB Circular A-133 presentation\n requirements. These reviews did not ensure that CPA audits met\n the applicable auditing standards and complied with program\n requirements. To supplement this desk review process, QCR\xe2\x80\x99s of\n the CPA\xe2\x80\x99s workpapers should be performed on a representative\n sample of the CPA audits to ensure auditing standards and program\n requirements are met.\n\n\n\n\n 42\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Sections 3.34(d)-3.34(f).\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 31\n\x0c RECOMMENDATION NO. 3\n Instruct the CDE to perform quality\n control reviews on a representative sample of CACFP audits\n completed by certified public accountants.\n\n FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to begin\n performing quality control reviews on a representative sample of\n CACFP audits completed by certified public accountants.\n\n The CDE did not perform adequate\n FINDING NO. 4 followup on findings in audits. There\n were no formal procedures to ensure\n that recommendations were acted on\n AUDIT FOLLOWUP WAS and that corrective action had been\n INADEQUATE implemented. As a result, there was\n no assurance that sponsors were\n complying with CACFP laws and\n regulations.\n\n Regulations state, "Recipients must establish a system for...following\n up on the results of subrecipients audits [to] assure timely and\n appropriate resolution of audit findings and recommendations." 43\n Further, "Documentation of supervisory assistance activities\n including reviews conducted, corrective actions prescribed, and\n follow-up efforts, shall be maintained on file by the State agency."44\n\n Government auditing standards note that "Auditors should follow-up\n on significant findings and recommendations from previous audits\n\n\n 43\n 7 CFR 3015.77 (a)(4) and (a)(7), dated January 14, 1986.\n 44\n 7 CFR 226.6 (l), dated January 1, 1995.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 32\n\x0c that could affect the audit objectives. They should do this to\n determine whether timely and appropriate corrective actions have\n been taken by auditee officials. Much of the benefit from audit work\n is not in the findings reported or the recommendations made, but in\n their effective resolution. Auditee management is responsible for\n resolving audit findings and recommendations, and having a process\n to track their status can help it fulfill this responsibility."45 CDE\n should ensure corrective action has been implemented by auditee\n management.\n\n CDE did not have formal written followup procedures to ensure that\n corrective action had been implemented for audits. The Audit\n Closure Unit received corrective action plans (CAP) from the\n sponsors, and action was taken only on monetary findings. Once all\n monetary action had been implemented, the file was closed.\n\n We reviewed five CDE audit files and the corresponding audit\n closure files to determine if any followup had been performed. None\n of the audits we reviewed documented that followup was performed\n to ensure that corrective action was implemented. According to an\n audit closure analyst, the auditor is to complete followup with the\n agency.\n\n For one of the audits, the sponsor submitted a CAP that stated the\n disallowed procedures were still uncorrected, pending additional\n information. The auditor who performed this audit stated he\n telephoned the sponsor to answer her questions, but all\n communication with her was verbal. There was never any written\n communication, nor did the sponsor submit a revised CAP.\n\n Furthermore, the audit closure analyst for this sponsor gave a copy\n of the CAP to the auditor, who inadvertently placed the file in the\n closed file cabinet instead of the accounts receivable file cabinet.\n Thus, the file was closed without any documentation that the total\n overpayment had been collected. We performed additional audit\n procedures and confirmed that the overpayment had been paid.\n\n\n\n\n 45\n Government Auditing Standards, Issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, 1994\nRevision, Sections 6.12-6.13.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 33\n\x0c During our review of CDE workpapers we also found that potential\n material findings were not brought forward to the audit report and no\n additional audit work was performed. We also found no evidence\n that the CAP for these sponsors was ever implemented.\n\n Additionally, one audit report stated that the prior audit\xe2\x80\x99s\n recommendations had been implemented. However, during our\n review we noted that some of the same findings were repeated in\n the current audit report. The auditor acknowledged that it was an\n error to report that the recommendations had been implemented.\n There was no evidence that action was taken by CDE on repeat\n findings.\n\n Based on our observations and inquiries, we determined an\n examination of the prior administrative review and/or audit report was\n the only followup performed by CDE. However, this was rarely\n documented in the workpapers. Although, administrative reviewers\n may have examined the prior review performed, by their own\n admission they did not meet with audit staff, review audit reports, or\n review audit workpapers before they conducted the next\n administrative review. Conversely, auditors did not always examine\n the latest administrative review or audit report.\n\n CDE officials stated that as of February 1998, they have established\n clear and comprehensive procedures for staff to take corrective\n action and follow up on conducted reviews. They also said they\n have established program policy committees that regularly meet to\n ensure proper followup, and they have instituted new monitoring\n procedures to ensure the proper implementation of corrective action.\n However, we have not received any documentation to support that\n the actions and procedures have been implemented.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 4\n\n Instruct the CDE to appoint a responsible audit official to certify\n corrective action has been implemented for required program-specific\n CACFP audits.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 34\n\x0c FNS Response\n\n In its written response to the official draft report, dated July 27, 1999,\n FNS agreed with this recommendation.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To accept FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision on this recommendation, we\n will need to be advised of the date when the CDE expects to appoint\n a responsible audit official to certify corrective action has been\n implemented for required program-specific CACFP audits.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 35\n\x0cEXHIBIT A - LOCATIONS VISITED\n\n ORGANIZATION/ENTITY LOCATION\n\nFNS Western Regional Office San Francisco, California\n\n\n\nCalifornia Department of Education (CDE) Sacramento, California\n\nChild and Nutrition and Food Distribution Division\n\n External Audits Unit\n\n Administrative Services Unit\n\n Field Services Unit\n\n Child Care Food Program Unit\n\n Adult Day Care Food and Special Projects Unit\n\nAccounting Office\n\nInformation Systems\n\n\n\nCalifornia Bureau of State Audits Sacramento, California\n\n\n\nCertified Public Accountants\n\nFor Pacific Enrichment Incorporated and FRAMAX Modesto, California\n\nFor Community Business Improvement Association Beverly Hills, California\n\nFor Children\xe2\x80\x99s Spectrum Los Angeles, California\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit A - Page 1 of 1\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 36\n\x0cEXHIBIT B - CDE AUDIT DEFICIENCIES\n\n\n Friends Aladdin\n Educational Crossroad Monterey Child\nNO. DEFICIENCIES CF Child Care s Child Bay Care\n Services Services Care Agency Services\n Services\n\n AUDIT PROGRAM\n 1 Did not verify retainment of advance\n funds in an interest bearing account. X X\n 2 Audit program not specific to CACFP X X X X X\n requirements.\n 3 Steps skipped, incorrect referencing X X X X X\n and audit procedures not followed.\n AUDIT WORKPAPERS\n 4 Limited documentation of sample X X X X X\n selection.\n 5 Limited documentation of internal X X X X X\n control structure.\n 6 No discussion of the internal control X X X X\n weaknesses.\n 7 Inadequate internal control X X X X X\n questionnaire.\n 8 Schedules were not adequately X X\n cross-referenced.\n 9 Did not review prior year findings. X X\n 10 Inadequate documentation of results X X\n of cash advance requirement.\n 11 Workpapers did not stand alone. X X X X X\n 12 Lack of explanation of symbols and X X\n markings.\n 13 Did not disclose the effect of X\n disallowed costs.\n 14 Did not document review of X X X X\n personnel records.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B - Page 1 of 3\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 37\n\x0cEXHIBIT B - CDE AUDIT DEFICIENCIES\n\n\n Friends Aladdin\n Educational Crossroad Monterey Child\nNO. DEFICIENCIES CF Child Care s Child Bay Care\n Services Services Care Agency Services\n Services\n\n 15 Most recent administrative review X X X\n report not included.\n AUDIT METHODOLOGY\n 16 Risk analysis was not performed. X X X X X\n 17 Did not expand testing when X\n circumstances dictated.\n 18 Materiality not addressed. X X X X X\n 19 Did not verify advance funds were X X\n issued in a timely manner.\n 20 Did not sufficiently verify timeliness of X X X\n payments to providers.\n 21 Prior year findings not corrected. X\n 22 Did not report questionable X\n expenses.\n 23 Did not verify budget transfer limits. X X X\n 24 Meal cash advance used to pay for X\n administrative expenses.\n AUDIT REPORTS\n 25 Material noncompliance not X X X\n emphasized or explained in report.\n 26 Opinion not supported by W/P\xe2\x80\x99s. X X\n 27 Going-concern issue never X X\n addressed.\n 28 Reportable conditions on internal X X X X\n control structure not in report.\n 29 Did not disclose extent of problems. X\n\n\n\n Exhibit B - Page 2 of 3\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 38\n\x0cEXHIBIT B - CDE AUDIT DEFICIENCIES\n\n\n Friends Aladdin\n Educational Crossroad Monterey Child\nNO. DEFICIENCIES CF Child Care s Child Bay Care\n Services Services Care Agency Services\n Services\n\n QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWS\n 30 Errors related to lack of proof-reading X X X X X\n and accuracy of data.\n 31 Included incorrect administrative X\n review report.\n 32 Lack of documentation indicating X X X X X\n managerial review.\n 33 Lack of documentation to show X X X X X\n internal QCR was conducted.\n 34 No documentation that external QCR X X X X X\n was conducted.\n STAFF QUALIFICATIONS\n 35 Errors related to lack of training or X X X X X\n qualifications.\n 36 Appearance of lack of independence. X\n TOTALS 24 20 23 18 28\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B - Page 3 of 3\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 39\n\x0cEXHIBIT C - FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE\xe2\x80\x99S WRITTEN\n RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit C - Page 1 of 4\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 40\n\x0cEXHIBIT C - FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE\xe2\x80\x99S WRITTEN\n RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit C - Page 2 of 4\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 41\n\x0cEXHIBIT C - FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE\xe2\x80\x99S WRITTEN\n RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit C - Page 3 of 4\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 42\n\x0cEXHIBIT C - FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE\xe2\x80\x99S WRITTEN\n RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit C - Page 4 of 4\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-9-SF Page 43\n\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Advertência jurídica importante
 |
 22007A1221(02)
 Acordo sob forma de troca de cartas entre a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia que altera o Acordo entre a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia sobre o comércio de produtos têxteis
 Jornal Oficial no L 337 de 21/12/2007 p. 0114 - 0118
 20071210Acordosob forma de troca de cartas entre a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia que altera o Acordo entre a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia sobre o comércio de produtos têxteisA. Carta do Conselho da União EuropeiaExcelentíssimo Senhor,1. Tenho a honra de me referir ao Acordo sobre o comércio de produtos têxteis entre a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia, rubricado em 1 de Abril de 1993, alterado e prorrogado pela última vez pelo Acordo sob forma de troca de cartas rubricado em 27 de Outubro de 2006 (a seguir designado por "acordo").2. Tendo em conta que o acordo caduca em 31 de Dezembro de 2007 e, em conformidade com o n.o 1 do seu artigo 19.o, a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia acordam em prorrogá-lo por um novo período de um ano, sob reserva das seguintes alterações e condições:2.1. O n.o 1 do artigo 19.o passa a ter a seguinte redacção:"O presente acordo entra em vigor no primeiro dia do mês seguinte à data em que as partes procederem à notificação recíproca do cumprimento das formalidades necessárias para o efeito e é aplicável até 31 de Dezembro de 2008.".2.2. O anexo II, que estabelece as restrições quantitativas para as exportações da República da Bielorrússia para a Comunidade Europeia, é substituído pelo apêndice 1 da presente carta.2.3. O anexo do Protocolo C, que estabelece as restrições quantitativas para as exportações da República da Bielorrússia para a Comunidade Europeia após a realização de operações de aperfeiçoamento passivo na República da Bielorrússia, é substituído pelo apêndice 2 da presente carta, para o período compreendido entre 1 de Janeiro de 2008 e 31 de Dezembro de 2008.2.4. As importações na Bielorrússia de produtos têxteis e de vestuário originários da Comunidade Europeia são sujeitas, em 2008, a direitos aduaneiros não superiores aos previstos para 2003 no apêndice 4 do Acordo sob forma de troca de cartas entre a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia, rubricado em 11 de Novembro de 1999.Caso não sejam aplicadas essas taxas dos direitos, a Comunidade pode reintroduzir, numa base proporcional e para o restante período de vigência do Acordo, as restrições quantitativas aplicáveis em 2007, tal como indicado na troca de cartas rubricada em 27 de Outubro de 2006.3. A Comunidade Europeia e a Bielorrússia reiteram o seu acordo de encetar consultas no máximo até seis meses antes de caducar o presente acordo, com vista à possível celebração de um novo acordo.4. Na eventualidade de a República da Bielorrússia aderir à Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC) antes do termo de vigência do presente acordo, os acordos e regras da OMC aplicam-se a partir da data da sua adesão à OMC.5. Muito agradeceria que Vossa Excelência se dignasse a confirmar o acordo do Governo de Vossa Excelência sobre o que precede. Nesse caso, o presente acordo sob forma de troca de cartas entra em vigor no primeiro dia do mês seguinte à data em que as partes tenham procedido à notificação recíproca da conclusão dos procedimentos jurídicos necessários para o efeito. Entretanto, o acordo é aplicado a título provisório, a partir de 1 de Janeiro de 2008, sob condição de reciprocidade.Queira aceitar, Excelentíssimo Senhor, os protestos da minha mais elevada consideração.Pela Comunidade Europeia20071210Apêndice 1"20071210"ANEXO IIBielorrússia | Categoria | Unidade | Contingente a partir de 1 de Janeiro de 2008 |Grupo IA | 1 | toneladas | 1586 |2 | toneladas | 7307 |3 | toneladas | 242 |Grupo IB | 4 | 1000 peças | 1839 |5 | 1000 peças | 1105 |6 | 1000 peças | 1705 |7 | 1000 peças | 1377 |8 | 1000 peças | 1160 |Grupo IIA | 9 | toneladas | 363 |20 | toneladas | 329 |22 | toneladas | 524 |23 | toneladas | 255 |39 | toneladas | 241 |Grupo IIB | 12 | 1000 peças | 5959 |13 | 1000 peças | 2651 |15 | 1000 peças | 1726 |16 | 1000 peças | 186 |21 | 1000 peças | 930 |24 | 1000 peças | 844 |26/27 | 1000 peças | 1117 |29 | 1000 peças | 468 |73 | 1000 peças | 329 |83 | toneladas | 184 |Grupo IIIA | 33 | toneladas | 387 |36 | toneladas | 1312 |37 | toneladas | 463 |50 | toneladas | 207 |Grupo IIIB | 67 | toneladas | 359 |74 | 1000 peças | 377 |90 | toneladas | 208 |Grupo IV | 115 | toneladas | 322 |117 | toneladas | 2543 |118 | toneladas | 471" |"20071210Apêndice 2"20071210"ANEXO DO PROTOCOLO CCategoria | Unidade | A partir de 1 de Janeiro de 2008 |4 | 1000 peças | 6190 |5 | 1000 peças | 8628 |6 | 1000 peças | 11508 |7 | 1000 peças | 8638 |8 | 1000 peças | 2941 |12 | 1000 peças | 5815 |13 | 1000 peças | 911 |15 | 1000 peças | 5044 |16 | 1000 peças | 1027 |21 | 1000 peças | 3356 |24 | 1000 peças | 864 |26/27 | 1000 peças | 4206 |29 | 1000 peças | 1705 |73 | 1000 peças | 6535 |83 | Toneladas | 868 |74 | 1000 peças | 1140" |"B. Carta do Governo da República da BielorrússiaExcelentíssimo Senhor,Tenho a honra de acusar a recepção da carta de Vossa Excelência de ... do seguinte teor:"Excelentíssimo Senhor,1. Tenho a honra de me referir ao Acordo sobre o comércio de produtos têxteis entre a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia, rubricado em 1 de Abril de 1993, alterado e prorrogado pela última vez pelo Acordo sob forma de troca de cartas rubricado em 27 de Outubro de 2006 (a seguir designado por "acordo").2. Tendo em conta que o acordo caduca em 31 de Dezembro de 2007 e, em conformidade com o n.o 1 do seu artigo 19.o, a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia acordam em prorrogá-lo por um novo período de um ano, sob reserva das seguintes alterações e condições:2.1. O n.o 1 do artigo 19.o passa a ter a seguinte redacção:"O presente acordo entra em vigor no primeiro dia do mês seguinte à data em que as Partes procederem à notificação recíproca do cumprimento das formalidades necessárias para o efeito e é aplicável até 31 de Dezembro de 2008.".2.2. O anexo II, que estabelece as restrições quantitativas para as exportações da República da Bielorrússia para a Comunidade Europeia, é substituído pelo apêndice 1 da presente carta.2.3. O anexo do Protocolo C, que estabelece as restrições quantitativas para as exportações da República da Bielorrússia para a Comunidade Europeia após a realização de operações de aperfeiçoamento passivo na República da Bielorrússia, é substituído pelo apêndice 2 da presente carta, para o período compreendido entre 1 de Janeiro de 2008 e 31 de Dezembro de 2008.2.4. As importações na Bielorrússia de produtos têxteis e de vestuário originários da Comunidade Europeia são sujeitas, em 2008, a direitos aduaneiros não superiores aos previstos para 2003 no apêndice 4 do Acordo sob forma de troca de cartas entre a Comunidade Europeia e a República da Bielorrússia, rubricado em 11 de Novembro de 1999.Caso não sejam aplicadas essas taxas dos direitos, a Comunidade pode reintroduzir, numa base proporcional e para o restante período de vigência do acordo, as restrições quantitativas aplicáveis em 2007, tal como indicado na troca de cartas rubricada em 27 de Outubro de 2006.3. A Comunidade Europeia e a Bielorrússia reiteram o seu acordo de encetar consultas no máximo até seis meses antes de caducar o presente acordo, com vista à possível celebração de um novo acordo.4. Na eventualidade de a República da Bielorrússia aderir à Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC) antes do termo de vigência do presente acordo, os acordos e regras da OMC aplicam-se a partir da data da sua adesão à OMC.5. Muito agradeceria que Vossa Excelência se dignasse a confirmar o acordo do Governo de Vossa Excelência sobre o que precede. Nesse caso, o presente acordo sob forma de troca de cartas entra em vigor no primeiro dia do mês seguinte à data em que as partes tenham procedido à notificação recíproca da conclusão dos procedimentos jurídicos necessários para o efeito. Entretanto, o acordo é aplicado a título provisório, a partir de 1 de Janeiro de 2008, sob condição de reciprocidade.Queira aceitar, Excelentíssimo Senhor, os protestos da minha mais elevada consideração.".Tenho a honra de confirmar o acordo do Governo bielorrusso quanto ao teor da carta de Vossa Excelência.Queira aceitar, Excelentíssimo Senhor, os protestos da minha mais elevada consideração.Pelo Governo da República da Bielorrússia--------------------------------------------------


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22000D1123(11)
 Decisión del Comité Mixto del EEE no 86/1999, de 25 de junio de 1999, por la que se modifica el anexo XIII (Transporte) del Acuerdo EEE
 Diario Oficial n° L 296 de 23/11/2000 p. 0046 - 0046
 Decisión del Comité Mixto del EEEn° 86/1999de 25 de junio de 1999por la que se modifica el anexo XIII (Transporte) del Acuerdo EEEEL COMITÉ MIXTO DEL EEE,Visto el Acuerdo sobre el Espacio Económico Europeo, adaptado por el Protocolo por el que se adapta el Acuerdo sobre el Espacio Económico Europeo, en adelante denominado "el Acuerdo", y, en particular, su artículo 98,Considerando lo siguiente:(1) El anexo XIII del Acuerdo fue modificado por la Decisión del Comité Mixto del EEE n° 68/1999, de 28 de mayo de 1999(1).(2) Debe incorporarse al Acuerdo la Directiva 98/18/CE del Consejo, de 17 de marzo de 1998, sobre reglas y normas de seguridad aplicables a los buques de pasaje(2).DECIDE:Artículo 1Después del punto 56e (Directiva 98/41/CEE del Consejo) del anexo XIII del Acuerdo se añadirá el punto 56f siguiente: "56f. 398 L 0018: Directiva 98/18/CE del Consejo, de 17 de marzo de 1997, sobre reglas y normas de seguridad aplicables a los buques de pasaje (DO L 144 de 15.15.1998, p. 1).".Artículo 2Los textos de la Directiva 98/18/CE en lenguas islandesa y noruega, anejos a las respectivas versiones lingüísticas de la presente Decisión, son auténticos.Artículo 3La presente Decisión entrará en vigor el 24 de diciembre de 1999, siempre que se hayan efectuado al Comité Mixto del EEE todas las notificaciones establecidas por el apartado 1 del artículo 103 del Acuerdo.Artículo 4La presente Decisión se publicará en la sección EEE y en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas.Hecho en Bruselas, el 25 de junio de 1999.Por el Comité Mixto del EEEEl PresidenteF. Barbaso(1) DO L 284 de 9.11.2000.(2) DO L 144 de 15.5.1998, p. 1.


type: other

text:
§ 25 VVVG, Kosten | Gesetze auf anwalt24.de
 § 25 VVVG, Kosten Suche
 Gesetz über Volksantrag, Volksbegehren und Volksentscheid (VVVG) Landesrecht Sac......§ 25 VVVG, Kosten§ 26 VVVG, Abstimmungstag§ 27 VVVG, Bekanntmachung von Tag und Gegenstand des Volksentscheids§ 28 VVVG, Ausübung des Stimmrechts§ 29 VVVG, Gliederung des Abstimmungsgebiets§ 30 VVVG, Abstimmungsorgane§ 30a VVVG, Berufung der Abstimmungsorgane§ 30b VVVG, Tätigkeit der Abstimmungsausschüsse und -vorstände§ 30c VVVG, Ehrenämter§ 31 VVVG, Mitwirkung der Landkreise und Gemeinden§ 32 VVVG, Stimmberechtigtenverzeichnis und Stimmschein§ 33 VVVG, Stimmzettel§ 34 VVVG, Öffentlichkeit der Abstimmungshandlung§ 35 VVVG, Unzulässige Beeinflussung der Abstimmung§ 36 VVVG, Wahrung des Abstimmungsgeheimnisses§ 37 VVVG, Stimmabgabe mit Stimmzetteln§ 38 VVVG, Briefabstimmung§ 39 VVVG, Ungültige Stimmabgaben und Stimmen, Auslegungsregeln, Zurückweisung v...§ 40 VVVG, Ermittlung und Feststellung des Abstimmungsergebnisses§ 41 VVVG, Bekanntgabe des Abstimmungsergebnisses§ 42 VVVG, Annahme eines Gesetzentwurfs...§ 55 VVVG, In-Kraft-Treten
 § 25 VVVG, Kosten
 § 25 VVVGGesetz über Volksantrag, Volksbegehren und Volksentscheid (VVVG)Landesrecht SachsenTeil 3 – VolksbegehrenTitel: Gesetz über Volksantrag, Volksbegehren und Volksentscheid (VVVG)Normgeber: SachsenAmtliche Abkürzung: VVVGGliederungs-Nr.: 113-5Normtyp: Gesetz(1) Die Kosten des Volksbegehrens trägt der Freistaat Sachsen.(2) § 15 Abs. 3 findet entsprechende Anwendung.(3) Die nach § 24 erforderlichen Mittel sind im Haushaltsplan des Freistaates Sachsen, Einzelplan "Landtag", auszubringen.
 § 24 VVVG, Kostenerstattung für die Organisation§ 26 VVVG, Abstimmungstag


type: wikipedia

text:
Anija vald oli kohaliku omavalitsuse üksus Eestis Harju maakonna idaosas.
 Valla pindala oli 517 km2 ning see kuulus pindalalt suurimate kohalike omavalitsusüksuste sekka.
 Anija valda ümbritsesid Kose, Raasiku, Jõelähtme, Kõue, Aegviidu ja Kuusalu vald Harju maakonnas, Albu vald Järva maakonnas ning Tapa vald Lääne-Virumaal.
 Vald hõlmas ajaloolise Harju-Jaani kirikukihelkonna idaosa, mõningaid alasid ajaloolise Kose kirikukihelkonna põhjaosas (Pikva, Alavere ja Voose ümbrus) ning vähese asustusega metsaseid alasid ajaloolise Ambla kirikukihelkonna lääneosas (Mustjõe ja Pillapalu ümbruses).
 Valla elanike arv 1. jaanuar 2016 seisuga oli Statistikaameti andmetel 5474 ja rahvastikuregistri järgi 5618.
 Anija vallavanem oli Arvi Karotam.
 2017. aastal ühinesid senine Anija vald ja Aegviidu uueks Anija vallaks.
 Asustus
 Linn
 Anija vallas asus üks linn – Kehra.
 Külad
 Rahvastik
 Ajalugu
 Anija vald Harju-Jaani kihelkonnas rajati 19. sajandil Anija mõisa territooriumi talumaid hõlmava tüüpilise mõisavallana. 19. sajandi lõpul ja 20. sajandi esimesel poolel toimunud valdade liitmisel muutus vald algsest suuremaks, hõlmates selle järel ka Paasiku, Kehra ja teisi mõisatele kuulunud maid. Vald likvideeriti 1950. aasta haldusreformiga (analoogiliselt teiste Eesti valdadega) ning taastati nõukogudeaegse Anija külanõukogu põhjal ja piirides 16. jaanuaril 1992. Lõplikud piirid sai vald 2002. aastal, mil vallaga ühines Kehra linn (seni eraldiseisev omavalitsusüksus, mida Anija vald rõngasvallana ümbritses).
 Valla kolmekümne ühest külast mainiti esmakordselt 1241. aastal välja antud Taani hindamisraamatus neljateistkümmet küla. Valla maa-alal asus mitu mõisat – 1914. aasta seisuga olid need Anija, Paasiku, Kehra, Kaunissaare, Kaserahu, Pikva ja Alavere peamõisad, lisaks veel mitu kõrval- ja karjamõisat.
 Vallale nime andnud Anija mõisast on kirjalikke teateid 1482. aastast. Mõisnikuks oli siis rüütel Herman Soge (Zoege).
 2017. aastal ühinesid Anija vald ja Aegviidu uueks Anija vallaks.
 Viited
 Välislingid
 Anija Vallavolikogu määrus, Anija valla arengukava kinnitamine, Vastu võetud 25.09.2003 nr 43, veebiversioon (vaadatud 03.02.2015)
 Eesti endised vallad


text:
Venera-4 (po rusky: Венера-4) bola sonda sovietskeho programu Venera na výskum Venuše.
 Veneru-4 (67-058A) spolu s ďalšími nevyhnutnými zariadeniami vyniesla na obežnú dráhu okolo Zeme raketa typu Molnija-M. Hneď na to bola navedená pomocou plošiny Ťažolyj Sputnik (67-058B) na medziplanetárnu dráhu k Venuši, ktorej atmosféru mala preskúmať. 18. októbra 1967 vstúpila sonda do Venušinej atmosféry a uvoľnila pristávacie puzdro s dvoma teplomermi, barometrom, rádiovýškomerom, meračom hustoty atmosféry, 11 analyzátormi plynov a dvoma rádiovými vysielačmi operujúcimi v decimetrovom pásme. Hlavná časť sondy, ktorá okrem korekčného motoru a slnečných batérií obsahovala magnetometer, detektory kozmického žiarenia, indikátor kyslíka a vodíka a iónové pasce, zhorela v atmosfére, ale predtým poskytla cenné informácie o pomeroch v okolí Venuše. Pristávací modul po vstupe do atmosféry zabrzdil svoj let s preťažením asi 300 G, rozvinul systém padákov (brzdiaci z rýchlosti zhruba 300 m/s na rýchlosť 10 m/s) a po dobu 94 minút vysielal signály o uskutočnených meraniach priamo na Zem, dokiaľ sa neodmlčal vo výške 24,96 km. Približné miesto pristátia je niekde na súradniciach 19° S, 38° V.
 Venera-4 bola prvá úspešná sonda, ktorá uskutočnila vnútrovesmírnu analýzu prostredia inej planéty. Uskutočnila prvú chemickú analýzu atmosféry Venuše, ktorej hlavným prvkom je oxid uhličitý s malým percentom dusíka. Zistila tiež, že atmosféra Venuše je oveľa hustejšia, ako sa pôvodne predpokladalo.
 Iné projekty
 Externé odkazy
 Sonda v encyklopédii Space 40
 Stručná zmienka na webe Encyclopedia Astronautica
 Venera 04
 Venera 04
 Kozmonautika v 1967
 Zaniknuté sondy


type: caselaw

text:
14.11.2016
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea
 C 419/25
 Domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale proposta dal Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germania) il 14 luglio 2016 — FMS Wertmanagement AöR/Heta Asset Resolution AG
 (Causa C-394/16)
 (2016/C 419/34)
 Lingua processuale: il tedesco
 Giudice del rinvio
 Landgericht Frankfurt am Main
 Parti
 Ricorrente: FMS Wertmanagement AöR
 Resistente: Heta Asset Resolution AG
 Questioni pregiudiziali
 1)
 Se la direttiva 2014/59/UE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che istituisce un quadro di risanamento e risoluzione degli enti creditizi e delle imprese di investimento (1), in particolare i suoi articoli 1, paragrafo 1, 2, paragrafo 1, punto 2, e 23, in combinato disposto con l’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, n. 1, del regolamento (UE) n. 575/2013 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo ai requisiti prudenziali per gli enti creditizi e le imprese di investimento (2), debba essere interpretata nel senso che rientri nel suo ambito di applicazione anche un organismo (società) di liquidazione, già ente creditizio ai sensi dell’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, n. 1, del regolamento (UE) n. 575/2013 (ente CRR) al momento dell’entrata in vigore della direttiva 2014/59/UE (2 luglio 2014), peraltro non più tale già prima della scadenza del termine di trasposizione della direttiva 2014/59/UE in diritto nazionale (31 dicembre 2014) e oramai priva di alcuna licenza per lo svolgimento di attività bancaria, ma autorizzata ad esercitare detta attività unicamente sulla base di licenza attribuita per legge, esclusivamente funzionale alla liquidazione delle attività.
 2)
 Se la direttiva 2014/59/UE, in particolare i suoi articoli 43, paragrafo 2, lettera b), e 37, paragrafo 6, debbano essere interpretati nel senso che una misura corrispondente allo strumento del bail-in di cui all’articolo 43 della direttiva 2014/59/UE rientri nel suo ambito di applicazione ratione materiae anche qualora detta misura venga adottata a seguito di provvedimento dello Stato membro d’origine in un caso in cui non sussista più alcuna realistica prospettiva di ripristinare la funzionalità dell’organismo di liquidazione che abbia già ceduto i propri rami operativi dopo l’entrata in vigore della direttiva 2014/59/UE (2 luglio 2014), ma prima della scadenza del termine di trasposizione (31 dicembre 2014) e non siano stati trasferiti servizi a rilevanza sistemica ad un ente ponte, né siano più stati ceduti o trasferiti altri rami aziendali dell’ente, ma detto organismo operi esclusivamente nell’amministrazione di attività, diritti e passività con l’obiettivo di una loro valorizzazione ordinata, attiva e quanto più efficace possibile (liquidazione delle attività).
 3)
 Se l’articolo 3, paragrafo 2, della direttiva 2001/24/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio in materia di risanamento e liquidazione degli enti creditizi (3) (nel testo di cui all’articolo 117 della direttiva 2014/59/UE) debba essere interpretato nel senso che una riduzione delle passività dell’organismo di liquidazione, [Or. 3] le quali siano soggette ad una diversa normativa nazionale, disposta da un’autorità amministrativa dello Stato membro d’origine di tale organismo, nonché la riduzione del tasso di interesse e il differimento delle passività nello Stato membro alla cui normativa esse siano soggette e nel quale sia residente il creditore interessato producano tutti i loro effetti senza ulteriori formalità oppure nel senso che ciò presupponga l’applicazione ratione personae della direttiva 2014/59/UE (come nella questione pregiudiziale sub 1) all’organismo (società) di liquidazione e che la misura disposta rientri nell’ambito di applicazione ratione materiae della medesima direttiva.
 Se la locuzione «produrre tutti gli effetti senza ulteriori formalità» significhi che il giudice di uno Stato membro chiamato a pronunciarsi sul riconoscimento delle misure disposte in base alla normativa dello Stato membro d’origine nel contesto delle norme applicabili alle passività non possieda alcuna competenza di accertamento in ordine alla compatibilità delle suddette misure con la direttiva 2014/59/UE.
 (1) Direttiva 2014/59/UE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 15 maggio 2014, che istituisce un quadro di risanamento e risoluzione degli enti creditizi e delle imprese di investimento e che modifica la direttiva 82/891/CEE del Consiglio, e le direttive 2001/24/CE, 2002/47/CE, 2004/25/CE, 2005/56/CE, 2007/36/CE, 2011/35/UE, 2012/30/UE e 2013/36/UE e i regolamenti (UE) n. 1093/2010 e (UE) n. 648/2012, del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio (GU L 173, pag. 190).
 (2) Regolamento (UE) n. 575/2013 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 26 giugno 2013, relativo ai requisiti prudenziali per gli enti creditizi e le imprese di investimento e che modifica il regolamento (UE) n. 648/2012 (GU L 176, pag. 1).
 (3) Direttiva 2001/24/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 4 aprile 2001, in materia di risanamento e liquidazione degli enti creditizi (GU L 125, pag. 15).