type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION \n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL \n\n 501 I STREET, SUITE 9-200\n SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814\n PHONE (916) 930-2388 \xe2\x80\xa2 FAX (916) 930-2390\n\n\n\n\n April 18, 2005\n\n Control Number\n ED-OIG/A09-E0027\n\n\nJuan Flores, Superintendent\nOffice of the Superintendent\nGuam Department of Education\nP.O. Box DE\nHag\xc3\xa5tn\xef\x80\x9da, Guam 96932\n\nDear Superintendent Flores:\n\nThis Final Audit Report, entitled Guam Department of Education\xe2\x80\x99s Reported Costs for\nConsolidated Grants to Insular Areas and the Special Education Grants to States-Part B,\npresents the results of our audit. The purpose of the audit was to confirm that selected personnel\ncosts and purchases that Guam Department of Education (GDOE) reported as expenditures for\nthe Consolidated Grants to Insular Areas (Consolidated Grants) and Special Education Grants to\nStates-Part B (Special Education Grants) in its Special Conditions Compliance Reports for the\nQuarter Ended March 31, 2004 were for services provided and purchases used for the program\npurposes specified in the grant awards and the expenditures complied with applicable Federal\nlaws and regulations.\n\n\n\n BACKGROUND \n\n\nOn September 17, 2003, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) designated GDOE as\na high-risk grantee because GDOE had not submitted timely and complete single audit reports.\nOne of the special conditions as a high-risk grantee was that GDOE provide detailed quarterly\nreports of the expenditures for each Federally funded program and the progress of significant\naspects of each program.\n\nThe Special Conditions Compliance Reports for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2004 included\nreports for three Consolidated Grants (Grant Nos. S922A010002, S922A020002, and\nS922A030002) and three Special Education Grants (Grant Nos. H027A010069A,\nH027A020069A, and H027A030069A). The table below shows the reported amounts for each\nof the grants:\n\n\n\n Our mission is promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 2 of 27\n\n Table 1. Amounts Reported for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2004\n Consolidated Special Education\n Award Year Grant Award Period (a)\n Grants Grants\n 2001 7/1/2001 to 9/30/2002 $ 7,407 (b) $ 4,622\n 2002 7/1/2002 to 9/30/2003 4,222,400 3,238,367\n 2003 7/1/2003 to 9/30/2004 512,657 917\n Total $4,742,464 $3,243,906\n (a) The Tydings Amendment (20 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 1225(b)) extended the available period for use of the\n funds for an additional year after the award period.\n (b) Amount reported was net of a $1,495 reduction in previously reported expenditures.\n\n\nGDOE operates 26 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 4 high schools, and an alternative\nschool. For award year 2003, GDOE received a Consolidated Grant for $20.6 million and a\nSpecial Education Grant for $12.9 million.\n\n\n\n AUDIT RESULTS \n\n\nWe concluded that GDOE included expenditures in its Special Conditions Compliance Reports\nfor the Quarter Ended March 31, 2004 that were improperly charged to the Consolidated Grants\nand Special Education Grants. We also found that GDOE did not have required documentation\nfor personnel costs charged to the grants and GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s inventory records did not reflect the\ncurrent location of some equipment purchases. Attachments 1 and 2 provide summaries of our\nreview of selected transactions.\n\nGDOE did not agree with our finding that it improperly charged the Consolidated Grants and\nSpecial Education Grants for the entire costs of transactions when portions of the costs were\nallocable to other activities. GDOE generally concurred with the other findings and\nrecommendations presented in this final report. GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s comments and the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s response,\nwhen applicable, are summarized at the end of each finding. The full text of GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s comments\nis included as Attachment 3.\n\n\nFINDING NO. 1 \xe2\x80\x93 GDOE Improperly Charged Costs to the Grants\n\nGDOE improperly charged the Consolidated Grant awarded for the period July 1, 2001 through\nSeptember 30, 2002 for costs obligated and paid after expiration of the available period for use\nof the funds. GDOE also improperly charged a Special Education Grant for a purchase that was\nnot necessary to the operation of the grant and charged the total costs of purchases for supplies\nand materials, capital outlay, equipment, and contractual services to the grants when portions of\nthe costs were allocable to other activities.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 3 of 27\n\nGDOE Charged $8,902 to a Consolidated Grant\nWith an Expired Availability Period\n\nThe regulation at 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 80.23 states \xe2\x80\x9c[w]here a funding period is specified, a grantee may\ncharge to the award only costs resulting from obligations of the funding period unless carryover\nof unobligated balances is permitted, in which case the carryover balances may be charged for\ncosts resulting from obligations of the subsequent funding period.\xe2\x80\x9d GDOE charged the\nConsolidated Grant awarded for the period July 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002 for $8,902\nof costs that were obligated and paid after September 30, 2003, the last day that the funds were\navailable for use by GDOE. GDOE staff acknowledged that the costs were improperly charged\nto the expired grants. Past single audit reports disclosed similar improper charges to expired\ngrants. In June 2004, GDOE informed its auditors that, by December 31, 2004, GDOE would\nimplement revisions to its policies and procedures manual to ensure that available appropriation\nbalances in its accounts are adjusted timely so grant funds are not used after expiration of the\nperiod of availability.\n\nGDOE also reported expenditures for the Consolidated Grant and Special Education Grant for\nthe period July 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002 on the Special Conditions Compliance\nReports for the Quarter Ended December 31, 2003. (The December 31, 2003 quarterly report\nshows $15,359 of expenditures for the Consolidated Grant and $92,830 of expenditures for the\nSpecial Education Grant.) Given our finding and the findings in past single audits, there is a\nsignificant risk that expenditures included in the December 31, 2003 quarterly reports may\ninclude costs obligated and paid after September 30, 2003.\n\nGDOE Charged $6,380 for a Purchase That\nWas Not Necessary to the Operation and\nPerformance of the Special Education Grant\n\nThe regulation at 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 80.20(b)(5) states \xe2\x80\x9c[a]pplicable OMB [Office of Management and\nBudget] cost principles, agency program regulations, and the terms of [the] grant . . . will be\nfollowed in determining the reasonableness, allowability, and allocability of costs.\xe2\x80\x9d The cost\nprinciples applicable to the grants are contained in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for\nState, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments. OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, Paragraph\nC.1 lists the factors affecting allowability of costs. These factors include that costs must be\n\xe2\x80\x9cnecessary and reasonable for proper and efficient performance and administration of Federal\nawards.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOf the 19 selected non-personnel transactions reviewed for the Special Education Grants, we\nfound that the purchase for one transaction, reported as a capital outlay, was for purposes\nunrelated to the grant. GDOE charged the grant $6,380 for a transaction under Purchase Order\nNo. 200301894 for a 45-foot storage container for the Ordot Chalan Pago Elementary School\neven though the school had notified GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Special Education Division that the container was\nnot needed. We found that the container was being used to store theater equipment at the Gifted\nand Talented Education (GATE) Theater. This purchase was not a proper use of the Special\nEducation Grant.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 4 of 27\n\nGDOE Charged the Entire Costs of\nTransactions to the Grants When Portions of the\nCosts Were Allocable to Other Activities\n\nAnother factor affecting the allowability of costs that is listed in OMB Circular A-87,\nAttachment A, Paragraph C.1 is that costs must be \xe2\x80\x9callocable to Federal awards under the\nprovisions of this Circular . . . . \xe2\x80\x9d OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, Paragraph C.3.a states\nthat a cost is allocable to a particular cost objective1 if the goods or services involved are\nchargeable or assignable to such cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received.\nOMB Circular A-87 also states that government units need to have a process whereby costs that\nwere incurred for a common purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, or not readily\nassignable to the cost objectives specifically benefited, can be identified and assigned to\nbenefited activities on a reasonable and consistent basis. The Circular provides two methods:\ncost allocation plans and indirect cost rates.\n\nWe found that GDOE did not have procedures that allowed the allocation of vendor payments to\ntwo or more funding sources. Also, GDOE did not have cost allocation plans or indirect cost\nrates. As a result, purchases allocable to other programs or used for common purposes were\ncharged directly to Consolidated Grants and Special Education Grants even though other\nprograms or activities may have benefited directly or indirectly from the purchases. Of the\n13 non-personnel transactions reviewed for the Consolidated Grants and the 19 non-personnel\ntransactions reviewed for the Special Education Grants, we found that six transactions for the\nConsolidated Grants and two transactions for the Special Education Grants were entirely charged\nto the grants when portions of the costs were allocable to other activities. These eight\ntransactions are summarized below.\n\nConsolidated Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Supplies and Materials. GDOE charged a grant $13,340 for a\ntransaction under Purchase Order No. 200400078 for SAT 9 test booklets. We identified another\n13 transactions under the same purchase order that charged the grants for additional test\nbooklets. The 14 transactions totaled $52,019.\n\nGDOE may charge Consolidated Grants for the test booklets since GDOE\'s Consolidated Grant\nApplications included use of the SAT 9 test for standards and assessment in its plan to improve\nstudent skills in reading, math, and language arts. However, the SAT 9 test booklets were also\nused for local purposes. Guam Public Law 26-26 Section 3105(a) states "[t]he Superintendent\nshall collect data and produce annual school performance reports containing information on\nstudent performance . . . .\xe2\x80\x9d GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Administrator for Research, Planning & Evaluation\ninformed us that the SAT 9 test accounts for 60 percent of the measure for student performance.\nThus, the $52,019 cost of the test booklets should be paid, in part, with local funds.\n\n\n\n\n1\n A cost objective is a function, organizational subdivision, contract, grant, or other activity for which cost data are\nneeded and for which costs are incurred.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 5 of 27\n\nConsolidated Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Capital Outlay. GDOE charged the grant for laptop computers and\nprinters that were used by employees providing services to other Federal programs and/or\nGDOE\'s general student and employee populations.\n\n \xc2\x83 GDOE charged a grant $74,520 for a transaction under Purchase Order No. 200301474\n for 30 laptop computers ($2,484 each). GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s records showed that 27 computers were\n assigned to 12 schools, and according to GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s accounting staff, the principal in each\n school received one of the computers.2 The three remaining computers were assigned to\n the Property Control Manager for the Receiving Warehouse, the Personnel Administrator,\n and the Data Processing Manager for Financial Student Administration Information\n Services. The cost of the 15 computers used by the Reading Coordinators in the schools\n was properly charged to the Consolidated Grant. However, since the school principals\n and the other GDOE employees provide services to the general student and employee\n populations, the $37,260 cost of the other 15 computers (12 for the principals and 3 for\n other GDOE employees) should have been paid, in part, with local funds and, if\n applicable, other Federal program funds.\n\n \xc2\x83 GDOE charged a grant $27,580 for a transaction under Purchase Order No. 200301474\n for 70 printers ($394 each). GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s records showed that 60 printers were assigned to\n 26 schools and a reading center. The principal at each school received one of the\n printers.3 We located one of the printers in GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Federal Programs Office and a total\n of seven printers in GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Business Office, Internal Audit Office, Personnel Office,\n Curriculum and Instruction Office,4 and Receiving Warehouse. We were unable to locate\n three printers, including the printer assigned to the principal at Finegayan Elementary\n School.\n\n The cost of the 35 printers used in the classrooms, reading laboratories, and Federal\n Programs Office5 were properly charged to the Consolidated Grants. However, the\n $12,608 cost of 32 printers (25 for the principals6 and 7 for other GDOE employees)\n should have been paid, in part, with local funds and, if applicable, other Federal program\n funds since the school principals and the other GDOE employees provided services to the\n general student and employee populations. (The cost of the three printers that we were\n unable to locate is included in Recommendation 3.1 under FINDING NO. 3.)\n\nIn total, $49,868 ($37,260 + $12,608) was not properly allocated among the activities that\nbenefited from the equipment purchases reported as capital outlays on the quarterly report.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Site visits at three schools confirmed that principals were using the computers purchased by this transaction and\nthat the other computers assigned to the schools were being used solely for program purposes.\n3\n Site visits at five schools confirmed that principals were using the printers purchased by this transaction and that\nthe other printers assigned to the schools were being used solely for program purposes.\n4\n GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Curriculum and Instruction Office coordinates curriculum development and provides support for program\nand staff development.\n5\n GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Federal Program Office administers the Consolidated Grants.\n6\n The 25 printers assigned to the principals do not include the one printer that we could not locate which was\nassigned to the principal in Finegayan Elementary School.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 6 of 27\n\nConsolidated Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Equipment. GDOE charged grants for software packages and printers\nbeing used by units that provided services to the general student and employee populations\nand/or other Federal programs.\n\n \xc2\x83 GDOE charged a grant $2,076 for a transaction under Purchase Order No. 200301464 for\n 12 copies of MS Publisher 2002 Software. Eight of the 12 copies (costing a total of\n $1,384) were used by the Curriculum and Instruction Office, Chamorro Studies Office,7\n Internal Audit Office, Receiving Warehouse, Personnel Office, and Business Office.\n\n \xc2\x83 GDOE charged a grant $1,260 for a transaction under Purchase Order No. 200301470 for\n six copies of MS Office XP Software. One copy (costing $210) was used by the\n Business Office.\n\n \xc2\x83 GDOE charged a grant $1,899 for a transaction under Purchase Order No. 200301470 for\n six printers. One printer (costing $317) was used by the Business Office.\n\nIn total, $1,911 ($1,384 + $210 + $317) was not properly allocated among the activities that\nbenefited from the software and printer purchases reported under equipment on the quarterly\nreports. The purchases should have been paid, in part, with local funds and, if applicable, other\nFederal program funds.\n\nSpecial Education Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Contractual Services. GDOE charged a grant $4,150 for a\ntransaction under Purchase Order No. 200400211 for a trainer to provide instruction to GDOE\nstaff at 16 schools on the use of Curriculum Director, (a test question database). The database\nwas used to monitor student progress and assist in aligning curriculum with the standardized test.\nWe identified additional transactions charged to the grant under the same purchase order for\n$3,214 for travel and $640 for training materials. The Administrator for Research, Planning &\nEvaluation informed us that the test questions were for special education students, English\nlanguage learners, and regular students. The purchases, totaling $8,004, should have been paid,\nin part, with local funds and, if applicable, other Federal program funds.\n\nSpecial Education Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Equipment. GDOE charged a grant $3,460 for a transaction under\nPurchase Order No. 200400212 for 10 Motorola handheld receivers ($346 each). The receivers\nwere assigned to the school principal, four vice principals, school secretary, custodian, and three\naides at John F. Kennedy High School.8 Except for the vice principal that oversaw the Special\nEducation program, the other high school personnel provided services to the general student\npopulation. The $3,114 cost of nine receivers should have been paid, in part, with local funds\nand, if applicable, other Federal program funds.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Chief Financial Officer, in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary for\nElementary and Secondary Education and the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and\nRehabilitative Services, require GDOE to\xe2\x80\x94\n\n\n7\n GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Chamarro Studies Office administers educational programs on the language and culture of the\nindigenous people of Guam.\n8\n The aides were campus safety monitors and their salaries were paid with local government funds.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 7 of 27\n\n\n1.1 \t Return to the Department the $8,902 for costs obligated and paid after September 30,\n 2003 that were charged to the Consolidated Grant awarded for the period July 1, 2001\n through September 30, 2002.\n\n1.2 \t Review costs reported on the Special Conditions Compliance Reports for the Quarter\n Ended December 31, 2003 for the Consolidated Grant and Special Education Grant\n awarded for the period July 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002 to identify any costs\n obligated and paid after September 30, 2003 and return those amounts to the Department.\n\n1.3 \t Submit its procedures that were implemented to ensure that available appropriation\n balances in its accounts are adjusted timely so that grant funds are not used after\n expiration of the period of availability.\n\n1.4 \t Reimburse the Special Education Grant account for the $6,380 cost of the storage\n container.\n\n1.5 \t Identify the portions of the $103,798 ($52,019 + $49,868 + $1,911) charged to the\n Consolidated Grants and $11,118 ($8,004 + $3,114) charged to the Special Education\n Grants for purchases that should have been paid, in part, with local funds and, if\n applicable, other Federal program funds, and return those amounts to the respective\n grants.\n\n1.6 \t Identify all transactions charged to the Consolidated Grants and the Special Education\n Grants since October 1, 2003 that should have been paid, in part, with local funds or\n other Federal program funds, and return those amounts to the respective grants.\n\n1.7 \t Implement procedures that allow the allocation of vendor payments to two or more\n funding sources.\n\n1.8 \t Develop, and submit to the Federal cognizant agency for approval, cost allocation plans\n or indirect cost rate proposals for October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004 and future\n periods.\n\nGDOE Comments\n\nExpired Availability Period. GDOE concurred that $8,902 was charged to the Consolidated\nGrant after the expiration of the period of availability and stated that GDOE had already begun to\ninstitute procedures to prevent charges to expired grants.\n\nGDOE\xe2\x80\x99s comments also addressed a finding in the draft report on the use of funds after the\nperiod of availability of a Special Education Grant. While the GDOE initially had charged\npayroll costs to the expired grant, GDOE provided us with documents to show that a journal\nentry was processed in April 2004, which properly transferred the costs to another grant. We\ndeleted the finding from the report since GDOE had identified and corrected the improper charge\nprior to our review. In its comments on the draft report, GDOE explained how the improper\npayroll charge occurred and the steps it has taken to prevent payroll charges from being charged\nto expired grants.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 8 of 27\n\nUnnecessary Purchase of $6,380 for Special Education Grant. GDOE concurred that the\nstorage container was not necessary to the operation and performance of the Special Education\nGrant. GDOE stated that journal entries will be processed to adjust the Special Education Grant\nand charge the cost of the storage container to the appropriate Consolidated Grant.\n\nCharges That Were Allocable to Other Activities. GDOE disagreed that a portion of\npurchases for supplies and materials, capital outlay, equipment, and contractual services should\nbe paid, in part, with local or other funds.\n\n \xc2\x83 Consolidated Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Supplies and Materials. GDOE stated that costs associated with\n its Research, Planning & Evaluation Unit, which administers the SAT 9 tests and\n prepares annual school performance reports, were paid with local funds. Thus, local\n funds were expended to carry out the cited section of the Guam Public Law.\n\n \xc2\x83 Consolidated Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Capital Outlays and Equipment. GDOE stated that computer and\n printer purchases for principals were allowed by the Consolidated Grant and that\n computer technology (computers, printers, software, and related accessories) was a\n necessary tool for principals to administer the grant and vital to the success of a school\n improvement program.\n\n GDOE stated that the computer and printer purchases for the other employees were\n allowed under the Consolidated Grant because the employees expended time on activities\n related to the administration of the grant (processing personnel actions and purchase\n orders, receiving and disbursing materials, etc.). GDOE also stated that the efficiencies\n provided by the computers ensured that human and material resources were provided in a\n timely manner to schools and divisions responsible for implementing the Consolidated\n Grant programs.\n\n \xc2\x83 Special Education Grant \xe2\x80\x93 Contractual Services. GDOE acknowledged that other\n students, besides students with disabilities, benefited from the Curriculum Director\n training, but stated that the expenditure of Special Education Grant funds was justified.\n GDOE stated that students with disabilities, who attended the 16 public schools where\n staff received the training, benefited because school staff learned how to use\n disaggregated student performance data in developing school intervention plans. GDOE\n also noted that school staff, who attended the training and used the Curriculum Director\n software on a continuing basis, were paid with local funds.\n\n \xc2\x83 Special Education Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Equipment. GDOE explained that John F. Kennedy High\n School provides services to students with disabilities residing within its boundaries and\n provides a regional program for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. GDOE stated\n that the Special Education Grant funds expended to provide Motorola hand-held receivers\n were provided to assist the high school in addressing the overall supervision\n responsibility for all students, including the students with disabilities. GDOE claimed\n that the placement of regional programs on regular school campuses resulted in increased\n administrative responsibilities for the schools and, if schools are not provided benefits,\n the regional programs would become unwelcome and eventually not allowed on the\n school campus.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 9 of 27\n\n GDOE also stated that the cost of the hand-held receivers was just a portion of the total\n costs expended by GDOE to provide a safe and secure campus for all students and noted\n that the personnel assigned the receivers were paid with local funds.\n\nOIG Response\n\nUnnecessary Purchase of $6,380 for Special Education Grant. In the draft report, we stated\nthat GDOE could charge the storage container purchase to the Consolidated Grants since the\nGATE program was administered under those grants. Prior to charging the $6,380 to the\nConsolidated Grant, GDOE will need to confirm that the applicable GDOE Consolidated Grant\nApplication included the purchase of the storage container as part of its operation of the GATE\nprogram and that funding is available under the applicable Consolidated Grant. Thus, we have\nremoved the statement from the final report and revised Recommendation 1.4.\n\nCharges That Were Allocable to Other Activities. We have not changed our conclusions and\nrecommendations related to this part of the finding. GDOE comments confirmed that the\npurchases for supplies and materials, capital outlay, equipment, and contractual services were for\nactivities that benefited both the students targeted by the Consolidated Grants and Special\nEducation Grants and the general student population. Given that GDOE did not have cost\nallocation plans or indirect cost rates, it is reasonable to conclude that some activities fully paid\nwith local funds may have benefited the targeted students. However, since our review was\nlimited to reported grant expenditures, we have no information available to confirm GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomments regarding its use of local funds.\n\nSince it did not allocate the individual vendor payments based on benefits received and did not\nhave an approved cost allocation plan or indirect cost rate, GDOE will need to review\nexpenditures from Consolidated Grant funds, Special Education Grant funds, local funds, and\nother funding sources to assess whether the Consolidated Grants and Special Education Grants\nwere charged in accordance with the relative benefits received. As an alternative, GDOE could\nimplement Recommendations 1.5 and 1.6 to ensure that the Consolidated Grants and Special\nEducation Grants were only charged in accordance with the benefits received.\n\n\nFINDING NO. 2 \xe2\x80\x93 GDOE Did Not Have Required Documentation for Personnel\n Costs Charged to the Grants\n\nGDOE did not have required periodic certifications for employees charging 100 percent of their\ntime to the Consolidated Grants and Special Education Grants. For employees working solely on\na single Federal award, OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, paragraph 8.h (3) states\xe2\x80\x94\n [C]harges for their salaries and wages will be supported by periodic certifications\n that the employees worked solely on that program for the period covered by the\n certification. These certifications will be prepared at least semi-annually and will\n be signed by the employee or supervisory official having first hand knowledge of\n the work performed by the employee.\n\nFor employees working on multiple activities, OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, paragraph\n8.h (4) states\xe2\x80\x94\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 10 of 27\n\n [A] distribution of their salaries or wages will be supported by personnel activity\n reports or equivalent documentation which meets the standards in subsection (5)\n unless a statistical sampling system . . . or other substitute system has been\n approved by the cognizant Federal agency.\n\nParagraph (5) lists the required elements for personnel activity reports and the provisions for\nusing budget estimates for interim accounting.\n\nDuring the period from January 1 to March 31, 2004, GDOE charged personnel costs for\n805 employees, totaling $3,297,318, to the Consolidated Grants and personnel costs for\n478 employees, totaling $2,831,963, to the Special Education Grants.9 The personnel costs for\nthese employees were charged 100 percent to the respective grants. GDOE accounting staff\ninformed us that GDOE had not implemented the required periodic certifications for employees\ncharging 100 percent of their time to Federal grants.\n\nWe selected 51 of the 805 employees whose personnel costs were charged to the Consolidated\nGrants and 56 of the 478 employees whose personnel costs were charged to the Special\nEducation Grants to confirm whether they performed services for the program purpose and to\nassess whether the employees worked 100 percent on the grants. Other than the few instances\nnoted below, we concluded that the personnel costs charged 100 percent to the grants appeared\nreasonable. The interviewed employees orally confirmed that they expended 100 percent of their\ntime on activities related to the respective grant. Also, the numbers of staff working in the\nGDOE units were about the same as the numbers whose personnel costs were charged to the\ngrants during the audit period and the employees were located in space or a building dedicated to\ngrant activities.\n\nWe noted the following instances where staff did not expend 100 percent of their time on\nactivities related to the grants:\n \xc2\x83 A program coordinator, an administrative assistant, and three accounting technicians\n informed us that, in addition to performing work on the Consolidated Grants, they\n processed applications and awarded scholarships for the Robert C. Byrd Scholarship\n Program (another Federal program). The staff stated that they spent a minimal amount of\n time on the scholarship program. The personnel costs for the five employees totaled\n $40,975.\n \xc2\x83 Nine school aides at John F. Kennedy High School, who provided one-to-one support for\n students with disabilities, informed us that, after completing grant-related activities, they\n performed general school tasks, such as assisting in student supervision, answering\n phones, and light maintenance. They estimated that generally 7.5 hours a day was spent\n on Special Education Grant activities and about thirty minutes a day on other school\n tasks. The personnel costs for the nine school aides totaled $44,085.\n \xc2\x83 The Administrator for Special Education informed us that school aides providing\n one-to-one support for students with disabilities did not work full-time on Special\n Education Grant activities during the summer. The March 31, 2004 quarterly reports did\n\n9\n Personnel costs were comprised of $2,736,635 for salaries and $560,683 for fringe benefits for the Consolidated\nGrants and $2,238,337 for salaries, $3,021 for overtime, and $590,604 for fringe benefits for the Special Education\nGrants.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 11 of 27\n\n not include personnel costs for the summer period. However, if its procedures are not\n revised, GDOE may improperly charge the Special Education Grants for the entire\n personnel costs for school aides working during the summer when a portion of the costs\n may be allocable to activities unrelated to the grants.\n\nNothing else came to our attention to indicate that other GDOE employees did not expend\n100 percent of their time on the grants.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Chief Financial Officer, in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary for\nElementary and Secondary Education and the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and\nRehabilitative Services, require GDOE to\xe2\x80\x94\n\n2.1 \t Implement at least semi-annual certifications for employees who expend 100 percent of\n their time on a Federal grant and personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation\n for employees who expend their time on more than one Federal grant or other activities.\n\n2.2 \t Review initial certifications (prepared after implementation of Recommendation 2.1) for\n employees who were charged 100 percent to the Consolidated Grants or Special\n Education Grants to identify those employees, if any, who did not work 100 percent on\n the respective grant. For the identified employees, GDOE should determine if the\n employees\xe2\x80\x99 duties during the certification period were similar to their duties since\n October 2003 and return to the respective grant account those portions of the personnel\n costs for time worked on activities unrelated to the grant.\n\n2.3 \t Provide support for personnel costs charged to the Consolidated Grants for the five\n employees who also administered the Robert C. Byrd Scholarship Program and for\n personnel costs charged to the Special Education Grants for the nine school aides who\n also performed general school activities, and return to the respective grants those portions\n of the personnel costs for time worked on activities unrelated to grants.\n\nGDOE Comments\n\nGDOE concurred with the finding and recommendations, but GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Special Education unit\nquestioned whether the one-half hour per day expended by the nine school aides on activities\nunrelated to the Special Education Grants reached a threshold that warranted the return of funds.\n\nGDOE stated that, effective April 1, 2005, quarterly certifications would be implemented for\nemployees who expend 100 percent of their time on Federal grants or between Federal grant and\nother activities. GDOE will review the certifications to determine if allocations were needed for\nportions that are not related to the Federal grant activities. GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Special Education unit\nstated that procedures would be implemented in Summer 2005 to ensure that local funding\nsources are charged for the percentages of employees\xe2\x80\x99 time unrelated to Special Education\nactivities.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 12 of 27\n\nOIG Response\n\nThe funds returned for the nine school aides are negligible in context to the total funds provided\nunder the Special Education Grant, but our review covered only a small number of GDOE\nemployees and only the reported personnel costs for the quarter ended March 31, 2004. Since\nGDOE did not have periodic certifications as required by OMB Circular A-87, there could be\nsimilar instances for other employees and time periods not covered in our review.\n\nThe corrective action proposed by GDOE does not comply with the requirements of\nOMB Circular A-87. For employees working on multiple activities, paragraph 8.h (4) of Attachment\nB states\xe2\x80\x94\n\n [A] distribution of their salaries or wages will be supported by personnel activity\n reports or equivalent documentation which meets the standards in subsection (5)\n unless a statistical sampling system . . . or other substitute system has been\n approved by the cognizant Federal agency.\n\nSubsection (5)(c) states that personal activity reports or equivalent documentation \xe2\x80\x9cmust be\nprepared at least monthly and must coincide with one or more pay periods . . . .\xe2\x80\x9d [Emphasis\nadded.]\n\n\nFINDING NO. 3 \xe2\x80\x93 GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Inventory Records Did Not Reflect the Current\n Location of Some Equipment\n\nGDOE\xe2\x80\x99s inventory records did not reflect the current location of some computers, monitors,\nand printers purchased with funds from the Consolidated Grants. The regulation at\n34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 80.32(d)(1) states\xe2\x80\x94\n Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a\n serial number or other identification number, the source of property, who holds\n title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal\n participation in the cost of the property, the location, use and condition of the\n property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale\n price of the property.\n\nDuring our physical observation of equipment, we found that GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s inventory records\nreflected the current location of all 74 items of equipment selected from the transactions\nreviewed in our audit that were purchased with funds from the Special Education Grants.\nHowever, we were unable to locate 11 of the 149 items of equipment that we selected from the\ntransactions reviewed for the Consolidated Grants. The 11 items consisted of seven computers,\nthree printers, and one monitor, which were purchased in the following three separate\ntransactions.10\n\n\n\n10\n The three transactions encompassed 126 of the 149 items reviewed for the Consolidated Grants. We found that\nthe inventory records were accurate for the items purchased in the other transactions that encompassed the\nremaining 23 items reviewed.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 13 of 27\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t GDOE purchased 130 computers and 130 monitors in a transaction under Purchase Order\n No. 200391606 with Consolidated Grant funds. GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s inventory records showed that\n the computers and monitors were assigned to various elementary schools. We conducted\n site visits to five schools to confirm the location and use of the 44 computers and\n 38 monitors assigned to the schools.\n\n We were unable to locate six of the computers that the inventory records showed were\n located at D.L. Perez Elementary School, and we found one computer at Finegayan\n Elementary School that was shown as assigned to another school on the inventory record.\n GDOE\'s Fixed Assets Office staff advised us that the location shown on the inventory\n record was incorrect. At the end of our onsite visit, GDOE had not yet provided us with\n the current location of the equipment. The six computers with their associated monitors\n cost a total of $9,978.11\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t GDOE purchased 70 printers in a transaction under Purchase Order No. 200301474 with\n Consolidated Grant funds. GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s inventory records showed that the printers were\n assigned to various elementary schools and GDOE offices. We visited five schools and\n six GDOE offices to physically observe the 24 printers assigned to those locations. We\n were unable to locate 3 of the 24 printers.\n\n We were unable to find one printer at Finegayan Elementary School. The principal at\n Finegayan Elementary School told us that the assigned printer was defective and had\n been replaced with another printer. GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s inventory records showed that three printers\n were at GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Chamorro Studies Office. However, GDOE\'s Fixed Assets Office staff\n informed us that the inventory record had not been updated to reflect the transfer of two\n printers from the Chamorro Studies Office to the Federal Programs Office. We were\n unable to locate one of the two printers transferred to the Federal Programs Office and\n the remaining printer at the Chamorro Studies Office.12 The three printers cost a total of\n $1,182.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t GDOE purchased 10 computers and 10 monitors in another transaction under Purchase\n Order No. 200301464 with Consolidated Grant funds. GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s inventory records\n showed that the equipment was assigned to the Federal Programs Office. We were\n unable to locate one computer and one monitor during our physical inventory. The\n computer and monitor cost a total of $1,684.\n\nSince we were unable to locate the 11 items, we have no assurance that the purchased equipment,\ncosting a total of $12,844 ($9,978 + $1,182 + $1,684), was used for the program purposes\nspecified in the Consolidated Grants. During a site visit in January 2005, an ED official\nconfirmed the location of the three printers purchased under Purchase Order No. 200301474 and\nthe computer and monitor purchased under Purchase Order No. 200301464.\n\nPast single audit reports disclosed that GDOE did not have a property management system in\nplace that met applicable requirements. In response to the findings, GDOE developed a\ncorrective action plan, which it was in the progress of implementing. The action plan provided\n\n11\n The unit price of $1,663 covered a workstation comprised of a computer and monitor.\n12\n We also noted that the inventory records showed a printer for the Federal Programs Office and a printer for the\nChamorro Studies Office with the same serial number.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 14 of 27\n\nfor the implementation of an inventory system and the identification of all equipment. We found\nthat GDOE had made progress in its implementation of the action plan.\n\nRecommendations\nWe recommend that the Chief Financial Officer, in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary for\nElementary and Secondary Education, require GDOE to\xe2\x80\x94\n3.1 \t Locate the six missing items of equipment and confirm that the equipment is being used\n for the purposes of the Consolidated Grants. If the equipment cannot be located, or is\n being used for other purposes, GDOE should return the $9,978 cost of the equipment to\n the grants.\n3.2 \t Report each quarter on the implementation of its corrective action plan.\n3.3 \t Implement periodic reviews of the accuracy of its inventory records.\n\nGDOE Comments\n\nGDOE stated that an ED official confirmed the locations of all the missing items during a site\nvisit held in January 2005. GDOE stated that its fixed asset records are being updated and\nperiodic inventory reviews will be conducted to confirm the locations of its fixed assets.\n\nOIG Response\n\nWhile the ED official informed us that he was able to locate all the missing items of equipment,\nhe had, in fact, only confirmed the location of 5 of the 11 items. For the other six items,\nGDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Assistant Comptroller, Fixed Assets Office, had provided revised serial numbers to the\nED official and the ED official had confirmed the location of the items with those serial\nnumbers. During the audit, the Assistant Comptroller had provided us with a list of serial\nnumbers for the 130 items received for the reviewed transaction. The list included the serial\nnumbers for the computers that we could not locate during our review and the revised serial\nnumbers provided by the Assistant Comptroller to the ED official. Thus, GDOE still needs to\nlocate 6 items to account for all 130 items received under this transaction.\n\n\n\n\n OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY \n\n\nOur audit objectives were to confirm that selected personnel costs and purchases that GDOE\nreported as expenditures for the Consolidated Grants and Special Education Grants in the Special\nConditions Compliance Reports for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2004 were for services\nprovided and purchases used for the program purposes specified in the grant awards and that the\nexpenditures complied with applicable Federal laws and regulations. We reviewed amounts\ncharged to the grants for salaries, contractual services, supplies and materials, equipment,\nmiscellaneous costs, and capital outlays from January 1 to March 31, 2004.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 15 of 27\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we reviewed GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s audit report covering the Schedule of\nExpenditures of Federal Awards and Federal Compliance for the year ended September 30, 2001\nand GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s single audit reports for the years ended September 30, 2002 and 2003. We\nreviewed GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Consolidated Grant Applications for program years 2002-2003 and\n2003-2004 and related correspondence. We interviewed GDOE staff responsible for the\nadministration and accounting of grant funds and GDOE staff at selected schools. We also held\ndiscussions with Department staff at the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and\nOffice of Special Education Programs who were responsible for providing oversight of the\ngrants.\n\nFor our review of GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s accounting and use of the grants\xe2\x80\x99 funds, we relied on reports of\nexpenditures for the Consolidated Grants and Special Education Grants for the period January 1\nto March 31, 2004, which GDOE staff generated from GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s financial accounting system.\nWe verified the completeness of the data by comparing the expenditures on GDOE generated\nreports to amounts on the Special Conditions Compliance Reports for the Quarter Ended\nMarch 31, 2004. We also compared information in the GDOE generated reports to source\ndocuments for selected transactions. Based on these tests, we concluded that the data was\nsufficiently reliable to be used in meeting the audit objectives. Attachments 1 and 2 provide the\nnumber of transactions selected for review and the selection methodology used for each cost\ncategory.\n\nWe performed on-site fieldwork between September 9 and September 28, 2004 at GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s\nadministrative offices in Hag\xc3\xa5tn\xef\x80\x9da, Guam and the following eight schools: M.A. Ulloa\nElementary School, Price Elementary School, Upi Elementary School, D.L. Perez Elementary\nSchool, Finegayan Elementary School, L.P. Untalan Middle School, John F. Kennedy High\nSchool, and the Alternative School. Subsequent to our site visits, we conducted additional\nreviews and analyses at our Sacramento office. An exit conference was held with GDOE\nofficials on December 20, 2004. We performed our audit in accordance with generally accepted\ngovernment auditing standards appropriate to the scope of the audit described.\n\n\n\n STATEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS \n\n\nOur assessment of GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s internal control structure was limited to those areas of control\nweaknesses identified while conducting substantive tests of grant expenditures. Based on our\nreview, we concluded that GDOE needs to establish procedures that ensure costs are properly\ncharged to grants, personnel costs are documented in accordance with the requirements of\nOMB Circular A-87, and accurate asset inventory records are maintained. These weaknesses are\nidentified in the AUDIT RESULTS section of this report.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 16 of 27\n\n\n\n ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS \n\n\nStatements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as other conclusions and\nrecommendations in this report, represent the opinions of the Office of Inspector General.\nDeterminations of corrective actions to be taken will be made by the appropriate Department\nofficials.\n\nIf you have any additional comments or information that you believe may have a bearing on the\nresolution of this audit, you should send them directly to the following Education Department\nofficials who will consider them before taking final Departmental action on this audit.\n\n Jack Martin\n Chief Financial Officer\n Office of the Chief Financial Officer\n U.S. Department of Education\n Federal Building No. 6, Room 4E313\n 400 Maryland Avenue, SW\n Washington, DC 20202\n\n Raymond J. Simon\n Assistant Secretary\n Office of Elementary and Secondary Education\n U.S. Department of Education\n Federal Building No. 6, Room 3W315\n 400 Maryland Avenue, SW\n Washington, D.C. 20202\n\n John H. Hager\n Assistant Secretary\n Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services\n U.S. Department of Education\n Potomac Center Plaza\n 550 12th Street SW, Room 5103\n Washington, D.C. 20024\n\nIt is the policy of the U.S. Department of Education to expedite the resolution of audits by\ninitiating timely action on the findings and recommendations contained therein. Therefore,\nreceipt of your comments within 30 days would be greatly appreciated.\n\nIn accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552), reports issued by the\nOffice of Inspector General are available to members of the press and general public to the extent\ninformation contained therein is not subject to exemptions under the Act.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n /s/\n Gloria Pilotti\n Regional Inspector General for Audit\n\x0c Final Report\n ED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 17 of 27\n\n Attachment 1\n\n Table 2. Consolidated Grants to Insular Areas\n Summary of OIG Review of Selected Transactions\n Finding #1 Finding #2 Finding #3\n Items in Sample/\n Cost Total Items/ Expired Unsupported\n Amount of Allocable Unconfirmed\n Category Total Amount Availability Personnel\n Sample Costs Assets\n Period Costs\nPersonnel 805 Employees 51 Employees (b) 5 Employees\n $3,297,318 $264,589 $40,975\nContractual\n 62 Transactions 2 Transactions (c)\nServices\n $444,122 $306,360\nSupplies and 1,212\n 2 Transactions (d) 1 Transaction\nMaterials Transactions $530\n $54,998 $52,019 (h)\n $491,264\nCapital\n 20 Transactions 4 Transactions (e) 2 Transactions 1 Transaction\nOutlays $8,193\n $360,168 $335,130 $49,868 $9,978\n\nEquipment 70 Transactions 4 Transactions (f) 3 Transactions\n $179\n $13,413 $6,435 $1,911\n\nMiscellaneous 945 Transactions 1 Transaction (g)\n $112,993 $2,168\n\nTotal\n $4,719,278 (a) $969,680 $8,902 $103,798 $40,975 $9,978\nAmount\n\n(a) Total excludes transactions for travel ($21,777) and utilities ($1,410) that were not included in our sampling universe.\n(b) All employees in the Federal Programs Office and employees at GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s Alternative School and the elementary, middle,\n and high schools with the highest personnel costs for the type of school.\n(c) Transactions of $150,000 or more.\n(d) The highest dollar transactions that were with different vendors.\n(e) Transactions $16,000 or more.\n(f) Transactions $1,200 or more.\n(g) Transaction with the highest dollar amount.\n(h) Amount shown includes the purchase cost for the selected transaction ($13,340) and additional transactions charged to the\n grant under the same purchase order for the same items.\n\x0c Final Report\n ED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 18 of 27\n\n Attachment 2\n\n Table 3. Special Education Grants to States-Part B\n Summary of OIG Review of Selected Transactions\n Items in Sample/ Finding #1 Finding #2\n Total Items/\nCost Category Amount of Unallowable Unsupported\n Total Amount Allocable Costs\n Sample Costs Personnel Costs\n 478 Employees 56 Employees (b) 9 Employees\nPersonnel\n $2,831,963 $290,455 $44,085\n\nContractual 211 Transactions 3 Transactions (c) 1 Transaction\nServices $114,257 $35,504 $8,004 (h)\n\nSupplies and 342 Transactions 5 Transactions (d)\nMaterials $61,952 $11,966\n\n 59 Transactions 7 Transactions (e) 1 Transaction\nCapital Outlays\n $107,594 $66,144 $6,380\n\n 46 Transactions 3 Transactions (f) 1 Transaction\nEquipment\n $22,680 $8,574 $3,114\n\n 100 Transactions 1 Transaction (g)\nMiscellaneous\n $73,276 $8,401\n\nTotals $3,211,722 (a) $421,044 $6,380 $11,118 $44,085\n\n(a) Total excludes transactions for travel ($32,183) that were not included in our sampling universe.\n(b) All employees who worked at the Division Office for Special Education and the four selected schools.\n(c) Transactions with the highest amounts paid to vendors for training and database development.\n(d) Transactions of $2,000 or more.\n(e) Transactions $6,000 or more.\n(f) Transactions of $2,000 or more.\n(g) Transaction with the highest dollar amount.\n(h) Amount shown includes the purchase cost for the selected transaction ($4,150) and additional transactions\n charged to the grant under the same purchase order for related travel and training materials.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A09-E0027 Page 19 of 27\n\n Attachment 3\n\n\n\n\n GDOE Comments on the Draft Report\n\x0c " NIi"\n\n\n\n\n Attachment 3\n (Continued)\n\n\n\n FINANCIAL AFFAIRS\n DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\n P.O. Box DE, \n\n HagAma, Guam 96932 \n\n Telephone: (671) 475-0422\n Juan P. Flores Fax: (671) 472-5009 Mary A. Y. Okada\nSuperinrendentofEducation Comptroller\n\n\n\n March 7, 2005\n\n Gloria Pilotti \n\n United States Department of Education \n\n Office of the Inspepor General \n\n 501 Street, Suite 9-200 \n\n Sacramento, California 95814 \n\n\n Ms. Pi/otti,\n\n Following is the Guam Department of Education\'s response to the Draft Audit Report\n Control Number ED-OIG/A09-E0027.\n\n These responses were compiled with the assistance of the Associate Superintendent for\n Special Education and the Administrator for Federal Programs.\n\n If any additional clarification is needed, please feel free to call me at (671) 475-0419.\n\n\n\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n Mary\n Guam Department of Education\n Comptroller\n\n Cc: Superintendent\n\x0c Attachment 3\n (Continued)\n\n Responses to U.S. Department of Education \n\n Office of Inspector General \n\n ED-OIG/A09-E0027 \n\n\n\nFinding No. 1 \xe2\x80\x93 GDOE Improperly Charged Costs to the Grants:\n\nGDOE charges $13,524 to Grants with Expired availability periods.\n\nGDOE concurs with the $8902. We have begun to institute procedures that will no\nlonger allow charges to be made to expired grants. However, for the $4622, a journal\nentry was already made to move the expenditures related to salaries to the appropriate\naccounts. This was done prior to the fiscal year end. The causes of these expenditures\nwere from salary charges in which the new accounts numbers were not completely\nchanged in the payroll system when the basic salary account was changed. This\nprocess will be updated with the personnel division to ensure that all salary related\ncodes are updated when new accounts are assigned to employees. Further, the\naccounting staff will monitor any such charges and make the necessary adjustments, if\nnecessary, on a continual basis.\n\nGDOE charged $6380 for a purchase that was not necessary to the operation and\nperformance of the Special Education Grant.\n\n GDOE concurs with the recommendation and upon receipt of final audit, we will\n make the necessary journal entries to reflect the adjustment to the Special\n Education grant and charge it to the Consolidated grant that should have been\n charged initially.\n\nConsolidated Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Supplies and Materials:\n\n In-kind costs of RPE for administering the SAT 9 tests and preparing the annual\n school performance reports are charged to local funds. Therefore, local funds\n were expended to carry out the public law.\n\nConsolidated Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Capital Outlay: GDOE charged the grant for laptop computers\nand printers that were used by employees providing services to other Federal programs\nand/or GDOE\'s general student and employee populations.\n\nConsolidated grants \xe2\x80\x93 Equipment:\n\nGDOE charged grants for software packages and printers being used by units that\nprovided services to the general student and employee populations and/or other\nFederal programs.\n\n\nConsolidated Grants Disputes the Finding.\n\x0c Attachment 3\n (Continued)\n\nThe costs of computers used by the principals were properly charged because the\nConsolidated Grant was implemented under the No Child Left Behind Act Title V-A\nwhich allows funds to be used for:\n\n o \tProviding training to principals related to Title V- A programs.\n o \tProviding technology activities to school personnel related to the implementation\n of school-based reform efforts.\n o \tGiving principals the knowledge and skills to provide students with the\n opportunity to meet challenging State or local academic content standards and\n improve student academic achievement.\n\nThroughout NCLB, e.g., Title I, Title II, and Title V, principals are embraced as a distinct\ngroup critical to improving student academic performance. Because of their immense\ninfluence on the general student population, the benefits of NCLB are naturally\nextended to them. To leave principals behind would leave students behind.\n\nThe Consolidated Grant Application Program Year 03-04 included the following in the\nReading Reform section:\n Objective: Establish data collection and reporting system for Direct Instruction\n student assessments at school and district levels.\n Activities:\n a) Provide schools with the necessary technology, training, and other\n resources to collect data and report assessment results.\n b) Establish student data management system to collect and report district-\n wide reading performance; contract with research consultants, if\n necessary.\n c) Set up schedule for regular collection and reporting of school data and\n district data.\n\nPrincipals are vital to the success of any school improvement program. In order to\nachieve the grant\xe2\x80\x99s stated objective, principals had to be given the means and\nresources, i.e., computer technology to include printers, software, and related\naccessories. The computers were provided to them because they are ultimately\nresponsible for managing and implementing the new and comprehensive Direct\nInstruction reading program at the school level. Principals are expected to supervise the\nteachers and reading coordinators implementing the program, and to keep track of\nstudent and school progress. It was imperative that they were equipped with the tools\nand resources that would assist them in leading and managing the program in the most\nefficient manner. They needed the computers to:\n \xe2\x97\x8a \t Prepare reports and documents required by the Reading First Center and \n\n Federal Programs \n\n \xe2\x97\x8a \t Prepare communications to faculty, staff, and parents about DI\n \xe2\x97\x8a \t Prepare DI teacher schedules\n \xe2\x97\x8a \t Communicate electronically for quick transmission of information\n\x0c Attachment 3\n (Continued)\n\n\n \xe2\x97\x8a Input and track student progress reports\n \xe2\x97\x8a Input needed instructional materials orders\n \xe2\x97\x8a Prepare graphs/tables for reporting\n \xe2\x97\x8a Review and maintain student groupings\n \xe2\x97\x8a Record classroom observations of teachers teaching DI\n \xe2\x97\x8a Review student and school performance\n \xe2\x97\x8a Keep updated on the use of technology for tracking student performance\n \xe2\x97\x8a Maintain other DI files\n \xe2\x97\x8a Maintain Consolidated Grant equipment inventories.\n\n\nPrincipals also used the computers for implementing other Consolidated Grant\nprograms such as DEED, Summer School, and SAT 9 testing.\n\n\nThe cost of computers used by the employees were properly charged because the\nemployees spent a great deal of time processing Consolidated Grant personnel actions\nand purchase orders, receiving and disbursing materials, etc. Computers were\nprovided to enhance their efficiency and to ensure that the human and material\nresources were provided in a timely manner to the Consolidated Grant programs being\nimplemented in the schools and divisions.\n\nSpecial Education Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Contractual Services: GDOE charged a grant $4150 for a\ntransaction under PO# 200400211 for a trainer to provide instruction to GDOE staff at\n16 schools on the use of a test question database. The database was used to monitor\nstudent progress and assist in aligning curriculum with the standardized test. We\nidentified additional transactions charged to the grant under the same purchase order\nfor $3214 for travel and $640 for training materials. The Administer from Research,\nPlanning, & Evaluation informed us that the test questions were for special education\nstudents, English language learners, and regular students. The purchases, totaling\n$8004, should have been paid, in part, with local funds and, if applicable, other Federal\nprogram funds.\n\nSpecial Education Disputes the Finding.\n\nDOE has 37 public schools. Special Education was asked to use its funds to pilot the\nuse of the Curriculum Director in 16 schools, in order to learn how to assist all schools\nto \xe2\x80\x9cdrill down\xe2\x80\x9d the SAT 9 data, as schools examined the individual student and school-\nwide student performances on the SAT 9, in order to develop school improvement plans\nthat are data driven. These school improvement plans are designed to improve student\nperformance on the SAT 9, including students with disabilities.\n\nWhile other students, besides students with disabilities, benefited from this pilot\nprogram, the fact that students with disabilities were intended to benefit should\n\x0c Attachment 3\n (Continued)\n\njustify the expenditure of grant funds. All students with disabilities at the 16 public\nschools that received the Curriculum Director training benefited from the training, as\ntheir school staff became more adequately prepared to develop appropriate school\nintervention plans based on the performance of special education students (the special\neducation students performances can be disaggregated from all other students).\n\nUncalculated in-kind local costs were incurred due to the salaries of the school staff that\nwere trained to use the Curriculum Director. In addition, now that the software and\nhardware are in place, continuing local costs are being expended each time the\nCurriculum Director is used, with Special Education students deriving benefits each\ntime.\n\nSpecial Education Grants \xe2\x80\x93 Equipment: GDOE charges a grant $3460 for a transaction\nunder PO# 200400212 for 10 Motorola handheld receivers ($346 each). The receivers\nwere assigned to the school principals, four vice principals, school secretary, custodian,\nand three aides at JFK High School. Except for the vice principal that oversaw the\nSpecial Education program, the other high school personnel provided services to the\ngeneral student population. The $3114 cost of nine receivers should have been paid, in\npart, with local funds and, if applicable, other Federal program funds.\n\nSpecial Education Disputes the Finding.\n\nIn addition to serving all students with disabilities who are in district to attend this\nschool, John F, Kennedy High School also serves as the regional high school for any\nstudent who is placed into our special program for students who are deaf and hard of\nhearing. In other words, if you are a deaf and hard of hearing student at the high school\nlevel, the only high school that can provide a free appropriate public education is\nlocated at John F. Kennedy High school, and is not available at the three other high\nschools.\n\nThe decision to develop regional programs for low-incidence students is based in part\non cost efficiencies to bring small numbers of students together on one school campus\nin order to hire one certified teacher of the deaf, instead of recruiting several teachers of\nthe deaf to teach on several school campuses. This also allows the district to\nconcentrate its professional development for the teachers in the regular classrooms to\none school instead of many schools. Our interpreters will also be concentrated on one\nschool campus, allowing the possibility of assisting each other in times of interpreter\nabsences.\n\nSpecial Education federal funds are provided to states and territories to assist states\nand territories to provide special education and related services to eligible students with\ndisabilities. The funds expended to provide Motorola hand-held receivers were provided\nto assist the high school in addressing the overall supervision responsibility for all\nstudents, including the students with disabilities,\n\x0c Attachment 3\n (Continued)\n\nsuch as the students who are deaf and hard of hearing. The questioned costs of the\nidentified hand-held receivers are just a portion of the total costs expended by the\nGDOE to provide for a safe and secure campus for all students.\n\nPlacing regional programs on regular school campuses resulted in increased\nadministrative responsibility on the schools. If schools were asked by the district to\nhouse regional special programs for low-incidence programs, and were asked to take\non the additional burden of supervision, administration, and litigation that typically\naccompanies such special programs, and there are no benefits to be provided, these\nprograms will become unwelcome and eventually not allowed onto a school campus.\n\nThus, the district decision to provide \xe2\x80\x9cassistance\xe2\x80\x9d to John F. Kennedy in purchasing 10\nMotorola hand-held receivers so that the Principal, Assistant Principals, and school\naides who were campus safety monitors, so that they can provide a safe environment\nfor all students, including students with disabilities, is an appropriate use of federal\nfunds to supplement our special education efforts at that particular school.\n\nIt is interesting to note that the OIG auditors identified the Principal, plus 4 Assistant\nPrincipals, plus a school secretary, plus a custodian, and 2-3 school aides as persons\nwho used the federally funded hand-held receivers. All of these personnel are all locally\nfunded. Therefore, of the total supervision costs required to ensure a safe and secure\nschool for all students, the salaries of the identified individuals are many times more\nthan the questioned cost of the hand-held receivers.\n\n\n Finding No 2. GDOE did not have the required documentation for Personnel costs\ncharged to the grants.\n\nGDOE did not have periodic certifications for employees charging 100 percent of their\ntime to the Consolidated Grants and Special Education Grants, and\n\nPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Paragraph 1: The personnel costs for these employees were charged 100\npercent to the respective grants. GDOE accounting staff informed us that GDOE had\nnot implemented the required periodic certifications for employees charging 100 percent\nof their time to the Federal grants.\n\n\nSpecial Education Concurs with the Finding.\n\nPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Paragraph 2: Other than the few instances noted below, we concluded that\nthe personnel costs charged 100 percent to the grants appeared reasonable, and\n\n\nPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Paragraph 7: Nothing else came to our attention to indicate that other GDOE\nemployees did not expend 100 percent of their time on the grants.\n\nSpecial Education Response:\n\x0c Attachment 3\n (Continued)\n\nSpecial Education Concurs with the Finding that personnel costs charged to the grant\nappeared reasonable and that other than the few instances noted, nothing else came to\nthe attention of the OIG auditors that employees did not expend 100 percent of their\ntime on Special Education grants.\n\nPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Paragraph 3 & 5: We noted the following instances where staff did not\nexpend 100 percent of their time on activities related to the grants:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Nine school aides at John F. Kennedy High School, who provided one-to-one\n support for students with disabilities, informed us that after completing grant-\n related activities, they performed general school tasks, such as assisting in\n student supervision, answering phones, and light maintenance. They estimated\n that generally 7.5 hours a day was spent on Special Education Grant activities\n and about thirty minutes a day on other school tasks. The personnel costs for the\n nine school aides totaled $44,085.\n\nSpecial Education Response:\n\nSpecial Education Concurs with the Finding that personnel were found to have spent\n7.5 hours per day on Special Education Grant activities. However, Special Education\nDisputes that because an inconsequential one-half hour a day was spent on non-\nSpecial Education Grant activities, that this constitutes a threshold that should result in\nquestioned costs for the amounts identified ($44,085), which is 5 hours out of an 80-\nhour pay period, which equals one-sixteenth, or 6.25 percent, of the entire pay period.\nHow this amount and percentage can be raised to a level of questioned costs is not\nunderstood, when in the OIG auditors own findings, \xe2\x80\x9cOther than the few instances noted\nbelow, we concluded that the personnel costs charged 100 percent to the grants\nappeared reasonable.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Paragraph 3 & 6: We noted the following instances where staff did not\nexpend 100 percent of their time on activities related to the grants:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The Administrator for Special Education informed us that school aides providing\n one-to-one support for students with disabilities did not work full-time on Special\n Education Grant activities during the summer. The March 31, 2004 quarterly\n reports did not include personnel costs for the summer. However, if its\n procedures are not revised, GDOE may improperly charge the Special Education\n Grants for the entire personnel costs for school aides working during the summer\n when a portion of the costs may be allocable to activities unrelated to the grants.\n\x0c Attachment 3\n (Continued)\n\nSpecial Education Response:\n\nSpecial Education Concurs with the Finding. GDOE will institute procedures effective\nthis summer (2005) to ensure that employees charged to the Special Education Grants\nwill be charged to local funding for the percentages of their time unrelated to Special\nEducation activities.\n\n\nProvide support for personnel costs charged to the Consolidated Grants for the five\nemployees who also administered the Robert C. Byrd Scholarship Program and for\npersonnel costs charged to the Special Education Grants for the nine school aides who\nalso performed general school activities, and return to the respective grants those\nportions of the personnel costs for time worked on activities unrelated to grants.\n\nGDOE concurs with this finding. Effective April 1st, GDOE will issue quarterly\ncertifications for employees who expend 100% of their time on federal grants or\nbetween federal grant and other activities. Upon review of these certifications, GDOE\nwill determine if allocations need to be made for portions that are not related to federal\ngrant activities.\n\nFinding No. 3 GDOE\xe2\x80\x99s inventory records did not reflect the current location of some\nequipment.\n\nGDOE was able to confirm with USDOE officials during their visit in January the location\nof the missing computers. Below is an excerpt of an e-mail that was sent from USDOE\nMark Robinson, regarding the location of the missing computers:\n\n As requested, I followed up on this issue while in Guam last week. Ray Miranda\n from GDOE and I went out to two schools to locate the items in question on the\n "Equipment Not Located" list, as well as the GDOE offices noted on the list. I was\n able to locate all of the items listed, based on the correction to the serial numbers\n as indicated on the attachment below provided by Ray during my visit. The\n problem with locating the items appears to be the result of incorrect serial\n numbers on the initial inventory sheet from what is actually shown on the items\n\nGDOE is in the process of updating its fixed asset records into the computerized fixed\nasset module under the Financial Management System. Upon initial input, GDOE will\nconduct periodic inventory reviews of the locations of its fixed assets.\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 15.6.2013
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 171/19
 Wniosek o wydanie orzeczenia w trybie prejudycjalnym złożony przez Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Niderlandy) w dniu 2 kwietnia 2013 r. — Turbu.com BV, druga strona postępowania: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
 (Sprawa C-163/13)
 2013/C 171/37
 Język postępowania: niderlandzki
 Sąd odsyłający
 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
 Strony w postępowaniu głównym
 Strona wnosząca kasację: Turbu.com BV
 Druga strona postępowania: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
 Pytanie prejudycjalne
 Czy władze i sądy krajowe powinny odmówić na podstawie prawa Unii Europejskiej zastosowania zwolnienia z podatku VAT w związku z dostawą wewnątrzwspólnotową, gdy w oparciu o obiektywne okoliczności zostało stwierdzone, że w odniesieniu do danych towarów zaistniało oszustwo podatkowe i podatnik wiedział lub powinien był wiedzieć, że brał w nim udział, jeśli prawo krajowe nie przewiduje w tych okolicznościach odmowy zwolnienia?


type: wikipedia

text:
Czerwoniec (ros. червонец) – nazwa kategorii monet w Rosji i ZSRR, wywodząca się od polskiego czerwonego złotego.
 Do XVIII wieku nazywano tak w Rosji wszystkie zagraniczne złote monety. Czerwońcami powszechnie nazywano bite od 1712 do 1797 monety złote o wadze zbliżonej do dukata. W 1923 wybito okolicznościowe monety złote o wadze 8,6 g na awersie których pojawiło się słowo "czerwoniec". Była także kolejna emisja takich monet w 1924 roku (z datą "1925"), jednak nie wiadomo, czy znalazły się one w obiegu. Emisję tych monet jako kolekcjonerskich kontynuowano w latach 1975-1982.
 Czerwoniec to także nazwa wyższych nominałów waluty będącej w latach 1922–1937 w obiegu w ZSRR.
 Zobacz też
 imperiał
 rubel
 Przypisy
 Rosyjskie monety
 Złote monety


type: contracts

text:
 25.11.2004
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 L 349/46
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉNS BESLUT
 nr 86/2004
 av den 8 juni 2004
 om ändring av bilaga XXI (statistik) till EES-avtalet
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR BESLUTAT FÖLJANDE
 med beaktande av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, ändrat genom protokollet med justeringar av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, nedan kallat ”avtalet”, särskilt artikel 98 i detta, och
 av följande skäl:
 (1)
 Bilaga XXI till avtalet ändrades genom avtalet om rörande Tjeckiens, Estlands, Cyperns, Lettlands, Litauens, Ungerns, Maltas, Polens, Sloveniens och Slovakiens deltagande i Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet (1), som undertecknades den 14 oktober 2003 i Luxemburg.
 (2)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 16/2004 av den 6 januari 2004 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1177/2003 om gemenskapsstatistik över inkomst- och levnadsvillkor (EU-SILC) när det gäller förteckningen över sekundära målvariabler för ”fattigdomsöverföring från generation till generation” (2) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (3)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 28/2004 av den 5 januari 2004 om genomförande av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1177/2003 om gemenskapsstatistik över inkomst- och levnadsvillkor (EU-SILC) beträffande den detaljerade redogörelsen för innehållet i den mellanliggande och den slutliga kvalitetsrapporten (3) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (4)
 Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 48/2004 av den 5 december 2003 om framställning av årlig gemenskapsstatistik om stålindustrin för referensåren 2003–2009 (4) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (5)
 Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2003/107/EG av den 5 december 2003 om ändring av rådets direktiv 96/16/EG om statistiska undersökningar av mjölk och mjölkprodukter (5) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 Bilaga XXI till avtalet skall ändras på följande sätt:
 1.
 Följande punkter skall införas efter punkt 18m (kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1983/2003):
 ”18n.
 32004 R 0016: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 16/2004 av den 6 januari 2004 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1177/2003 om gemenskapsstatistik över inkomst- och levnadsvillkor (EU-SILC) när det gäller förteckningen över sekundära målvariabler för ”fattigdomsöverföring från generation till generation” (EUT L 4, 8.1.2004, s. 3).
 18o.
 32004 R 0028: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 28/2004 av den 5 januari 2004 om genomförande av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1177/2003 om gemenskapsstatistik över inkomst- och levnadsvillkor (EU-SILC) beträffande den detaljerade redogörelsen för innehållet i den mellanliggande och den slutliga kvalitetsrapporten (EUT L 5, 9.1.2004, s. 42).”
 2.
 Följande punkt skall införas efter punkt 4b (rådets förordning (EEG) nr 2186/93):
 ”4c.
 32004 R 0048: Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 48/2004 av den 5 december 2003 om framställning av årlig gemenskapsstatistik om stålindustrin för referensåren 2003–2009 (EUT L 7, 13.1.2004, s. 1).”
 3.
 Följande skall läggas till i punkt 21 (rådets direktiv 96/16/EG):
 ”, ändrat genom:
 —
 32003 L 0107: Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2003/107/EG av den 5 december 2003 (EUT L 7, 13.1.2004, s. 40).”
 Artikel 2
 Texterna till förordningarna (EG) nr 16/2004, (EG) nr 28/2004 och (EG) nr 48/2004 och direktiv 2003/107/EG på isländska och norska, som skall offentliggöras i EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, skall vara giltiga.
 Artikel 3
 Detta beslut träder i kraft den 9 juni 2004, under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i avtalet har gjorts till Gemensamma EES-kommittén (6).
 Artikel 4
 Detta beslut skall offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning.
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den 8 juni 2004.
 På Gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnar
 S. GILLESPIE
 Ordförande
 (1) EUT L 130, 29.4.2004, s. 3.
 (2) EUT L 4, 8.1.2004, s. 3.
 (3) EUT L 5, 9.1.2004, s. 42.
 (4) EUT L 7, 13.1.2004, s. 1.
 (5) EUT L 7, 13.1.2004, s. 40.
 (6) Inga konstitutionella krav angivna.