type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" Denali Commission\n 510 L Street, Suite 410\n Anchorage, AK 99501\n\n 907.271.1414 tel\n 907.271.1415 fax\n 888.480.4321 toll free\n www.denali.gov\n\n\n\n\n FINAL REPORT\n FOR PUBLIC RELEASE\n\n\n\n\nSEMIANNUAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESS\n\n\n FY 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 SECOND HALF\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n DENALI COMMISSION\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 1 October 2013\n\n\n\n\n FINAL REPORT\n FOR PUBLIC RELEASE\n\n\n\n\n DENALI COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n SEMIANNUAL REPORT\n FOR\n SECOND HALF OF FY 2013\n\n\n\nSection 5 of the Inspector General Act requires the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the\nDenali Commission to prepare a semiannual report. The discussion below constitutes this report\nfor the second half of FY 2013.\n\nParts of the Government are currently \xe2\x80\x9cshut down\xe2\x80\x9d for an undetermined period. However, due to\na nuance of appropriation law, Denali remains open for business. Per the Inspector General Act,\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s semiannual report remains due at this time.\n\n\n THE RED HERRING OF \xe2\x80\x9cREAUTHORIZATION\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe Denali Commission (Denali) is a small federal agency that makes grants to build public\nworks in \xe2\x80\x9cbush\xe2\x80\x9d Alaska.1 The late Senator Stevens created it to channel funding to remote\nsettlements that otherwise would not receive congressional support.\n\nA year ago, Alaska\xe2\x80\x99s sole member of the House (Congressman Don Young) introduced\nH.R. 6478 (which the 112th Congress did not enact). The bill\xe2\x80\x99s provision for \xe2\x80\x9cReauthorization\xe2\x80\x9d\nsuggested that Congress should give Denali perpetual life (and presumably perpetual funding):\n\n There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as are\n necessary to carry out this title, in accordance with the purposes of this title, for\n fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year thereafter.2\n\nThis language perpetuates the popular misconception that the Denali Commission\xe2\x80\x99s\n\xe2\x80\x9cauthorization\xe2\x80\x9d to operate expired some years back and now needs to be renewed, or the agency\nwill become extinct (or at least on the list of \xe2\x80\x9cendangered\xe2\x80\x9d agencies).\n\nBut GAO busted this myth in a 2012 ruling concerning another agency. The published decision3\nof the Comptroller General carefully explained the importance of distinguishing between\nCongress\xe2\x80\x99 initial authorization of a program itself and Congress\xe2\x80\x99 periodic authorization of the\nappropriations to fund the program. The decision reviewed enabling acts with the same type of\nlanguage \xe2\x80\x94 that is, authorization of appropriations for specific blocks of five years \xe2\x80\x94 that\nCongress has included in Denali own \xe2\x80\x9creauthorizations\xe2\x80\x9d from time to time.\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 2 October 2013\n\n\n\n\nGAO serves as Congress\xe2\x80\x99 \xe2\x80\x9cbooth referee\xe2\x80\x9d for such calls, and we quote directly from GAO\xe2\x80\x99s\npublished ruling:\n\n There is no general requirement, either constitutional or statutory, that an\n appropriation act be preceded by a specific authorization of appropriation. . .\n\n [T]he enabling statutes establishing the . . . programs provide legal authority for the\n agency to carry out these programs despite the absence of authorizations of\n appropriations. Where an agency has statutory authority or a statutory requirement\n to carry out a particular activity, the presence or absence of an authorization of\n appropriations is not determinative. Because the program authority in the enabling\n statutes has not expired, and [the agency] has an appropriation that is available to\n cover the costs of these programs, we conclude that [the agency] has adequate\n authority to continue both programs.\n\nThe Comptroller General thus reassures us that agencies like Denali aren\xe2\x80\x99t going anywhere until\nCongress either repeals their enabling acts or stops sending the \xe2\x80\x9cappropriations\xe2\x80\x9d (versus mere\n\xe2\x80\x9cauthorizations\xe2\x80\x9d) to fund them.\n\n\n THE CASE AGAINST CONTINUING\n THE DENALI COMMISSION\n\nThe Inspector General Act directs that OIG\xe2\x80\x99s semiannual report advise Congress as to ways that\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s funding can be \xe2\x80\x9cput to better use.\xe2\x80\x9d4\n\nCongress\xe2\x80\x99 15-year experiment with the Denali Commission has\nrun its course, and OIG now recommends that Congress put its EXHIBIT 1\nmoney elsewhere. DENALI\xe2\x80\x99S TYPICAL\n FUNDING CHAIN\n\nDespite Denali protests to the contrary, OIG\xe2\x80\x99s position is\nneither new nor a surprise. As detailed below, OMB, CBO, and Congressional appropriation\nOIG have over the years questioned the need for Denali as a \xe2\x86\x93\n Cabinet-level department\npass-through layer and a \xe2\x80\x9cregional\xe2\x80\x9d commission that serves \xe2\x86\x93\nonly the single state of Alaska.5 Denali Commission\n \xe2\x86\x93\n Major grantee\nIn fact, OIG\xe2\x80\x99s recent reports have recommended that Congress \xe2\x86\x93\nsunset Denali as a federal agency and convert it into a Sub-awardee\nnonfederal entity under local law.6 Congress would then \xe2\x86\x93\n Project management firm\ntransfer Denali\xe2\x80\x99s assets into state ownership (like the Alaska \xe2\x86\x93\nRailroad7) or into rebirth as a nonprofit corporation (an NGO Contractors\nlike the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium8). \xe2\x86\x93\n Local employees\n\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s typical funding chain is shown in Exhibit 1.\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 3 October 2013\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n Denali\xe2\x80\x99s problematic paradigm: SMALL SETTLEMENTS WITH DENALI-FUNDED\n millions for \xe2\x80\x9cmicro-settlements\xe2\x80\x9d POWERHOUSES AND TANK FARMS\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cPERSONS DENALI\n HOUSE-\nDenali measures its success in terms of how SETTLEMENT\n POP.\n HOLDS\n IN SPENDING\n (2012) POVERTY\xe2\x80\x9d THRU\nmany buildings it can complete in how many (2010)\n (2011) AUG. 9, 2013\nplaces,9 before the money finally runs out. Nikolski 16 13 8 $ 3,164,057\n Red Devil 19 12 2 675,000\n\nHowever, one of Denali\xe2\x80\x99s most difficult and Alatna\n Lime Village\n 27\n 27\n 12\n 11\n 0\n 7\n 544,667\n 420,162\nuncomfortable issues has been the size of Elfin Cove 39 13 10 652,201\n False Pass 39 15 0 1,141,761\ncommunity that warrants public support Karluk 41 12 17 745,730\n(versus self-support). While public lore may Pedro Bay 42 19 0 1,867,116\n Stony River 42 20 33 1,700,000\nabstractly decry government projects in the Nelson Lagoon 46 22 10 1,972,044\nmiddle of \xe2\x80\x9cnowhere,\xe2\x80\x9d the choices are very real Igiugig 52 16 13 2,446,667\n Takotna 53 22 28 3,600,000\nfor families that must go without what most of Clarks Point 59 24 18 1,102,981\nAmerica takes for granted in the 21st Century. Atka 64 24 5 6,100,533\n Stevens Village 67 26 31 1,600,223\n Chalkyitsik 68 24 16 231,845\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s records show that it has spent Chenega Bay 68 31 8 1,187,165\n Pilot Point 68 27 2 2,834,442\n$200 million to build facilities in 81 places that Pelican 82 41 3 7,208,051\nhave less than 250 people. Population records Sleetmute 84 36 15 (unknown)\n Anvik 85 33 30 540,178\nfrom the State show that these 81 places have a Akhiok 87 19 27 434,811\ntotal of less than 10,000 people (that is, less Eagle 87 41 12 3,109,387\n Hughes 87 31 12 1,851,978\nthan 2% of Alaska\xe2\x80\x99s population). Or, to put it Levelock 88 27 31 217,828\nanother way, the $200 million served around Chignik 91 41 8 5,925,109\n Larsen Bay 93 34 0 3,011,287\n3,500 households. And state records estimate Nikolai 94 37 51 1,068,884\nthat these 81 places have a total of just under Koyukuk 95 42 63 4,568,571\n Whitestone 99 22 17 2,071,584\n2,200 \xe2\x80\x9cpersons in poverty.\xe2\x80\x9d Allakaket 106 44 26 1,544,593\n Egegik 106 29 3 472,410\n Perryville 112 38 46 659,305\nThe agency\xe2\x80\x99s original strategic plan idealisti- Diomede 121 38 84 3,538,963\ncally aspired that \xe2\x80\x9c[a]ll Alaska, no matter how Port Heiden 123 35 4 1,438,172\n Chitina 139 52 19 3,295,870\nisolated, will have the physical infrastructure Deering 142 44 10 3,832,977\nnecessary to protect health and safety and to Tenakee Springs 152 72 20 2,989,483\n Port Graham 168 79 35 894,090\nsupport self-sustaining economic develop- Kokhanok 170 52 39 2,420,246\nment.\xe2\x80\x9d10 Golovin\n Arctic Village\n 173\n 178\n 49\n 65\n 14\n 15\n 3,280,290\n 3,619,114\n Ouzinkie 178 56 68 623,579\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s paradigm in practice has been to build Venetie\n Ruby\n 181\n 185\n 61\n 62\n 45\n 65\n 224,815\n 5,772,560\nthree basic facilities in every \xe2\x80\x9cbush\xe2\x80\x9d settle- Kaltag 186 70 47 3,693,732\n White Mountain 188 65 53 2,398,558\nment: (1) a powerhouse, (2) a tank farm, and Port Lions 201 77 24 853,980\n(3) a medical clinic. Denali inherited lists of Aleknagik 204 71 74 338,658\n Nunam Iqua 206 43 58 596,737\nsettlements that wanted such facilities, and the Old Harbor 206 84 50 1,099,690\nagency has responded by \xe2\x80\x9cwholesaling\xe2\x80\x9d its Mekoryuk 210 70 49 5,419,149\n Koliganek 223 55 21 1,059,765\nappropriations to several major grantees that Tanana 233 100 31 2,267,859\ndo the actual construction. Seldovia 242 121 24 2,983,419\n Totals 6,242 2,279 1,401 $ 117,312,276\n\n Population data per State of Alaska community database\n at http://commerce.alaska.gov\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 4 October 2013\n\n\n\n\nExhibits 2, 3, and 4 list tiny settlements EXHIBIT 3\n( < 250 pop.) that have received facilities as SMALL SETTLEMENTS WITH\nDenali has continued to work its way DENALI-FUNDED MEDICAL CLINICS\nthrough the long lists of local requests. All\n \xe2\x80\x9cPERSONS DENALI\nof this information was obtained from POP.\n HOUSE-\n IN SPENDING\n SETTLEMENT HOLDS\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s public website (www.denali.gov) (2012)\n (2010)\n POVERTY\xe2\x80\x9d THRU\n (2011) AUG. 7, 2013\nand the State\xe2\x80\x99s online public database of\n Alatna 27 12 0 $519,000\nsettlement demographics. False Pass 39 15 0 101,158\n Igiugig 52 16 13 1,197,750\nBut a \xe2\x80\x9cfree\xe2\x80\x9d powerhouse, tank farm, or clinic Clark\xe2\x80\x99s Point 59 24 18 1,491,044\nisn\xe2\x80\x99t really \xe2\x80\x9cfree\xe2\x80\x9d if a tiny place can\xe2\x80\x99t fund Stevens Village 67 26 31 135,433\n Chalkyitsik 68 24 16 1,724,080\nthe fuel, upkeep, and staffing to make use Pilot Point 68 1,640,514\n 27 2\nof it. Denali assumes that the community Kasaan 69 23 0 1,780,338\nwill receive other government subsidies in Shageluk 69 36 13 670,399\nthe decades ahead to operate what Denali Twin Hills 83 29 23 1,104,056\n Sleetmute 84 36 15 785,369\nbuilds today.\n Akhiok 87 19 27 1,522,652\n Beaver 87 36 28 546,963\n Hughes 87 31 12 1,485,700\n The persistent question of Levelock 88 27 31 1,493,719\n Denali\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cvalue added\xe2\x80\x9d Klukwan 93 41 2 287,237\n Chistochina 95 36 18 1,492,659\n Egegik 106 29 3 246,543\nBeneficiaries sometimes challenge why their Perryville 112 38 46 3,340,128\n Ekwok 118 37 35 1,833,405\nfunding from Congress needs to be reduced Tetlin 118 43 11 979,579\nby the administrative costs of running the Chuathbaluk 138 36 24 633,268\nDenali Commission. While beneficiaries Chitina 139 52 19 1,046,620\nunderstand that they must please Denali with Kobuk 141 36 59 1,615,383\n Deering 142 44 10 786,424\nsimple reporting to get their money, those\n Nondalton 169 57 104 2,263,084\ncomplaining don\xe2\x80\x99t perceive that they are Kokhanok 170 52 39 1,414,932\ngetting significant services. Tyonek 171 70 74 444,942\n Golovin 173 49 14 1,150,157\nTheir question is a good one that OIG hasn\xe2\x80\x99t Newhalen 178 50 28 3,586,283\n Grayling 178 55 52 792,195\nbeen able to satisfactorily answer in our Ouzinkie 178 1,606,934\n 56 68\nyears of studying the little agency. Coffman Cove 181 89 6 758,989\n Holy Cross 181 64 63 411,200\nFor instance, for powerhouses and tank Kaltag 186 70 47 2,107,646\n White Mountain 188 65 53 1,157,271\nfarms, Denali receives transfers from the\n Port Lions 201 77 24 1,638,212\nUSDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS)11 and Aleknagik 204 71 74 1,717,888\nthen sends the money on to a state agency12 Nunam Iqua 206 43 58 804,430\nand a large utility cooperative.13 Both of Old Harbor 206 84 50 1,993,986\nthese recipients are far more technically Mekoryuk 210 70 49 847,399\n Gakona 214 1,360,095\nsophisticated than Denali\xe2\x80\x99s tiny staff Koliganek 223\n 86 9\n 2,460,898\n 55 21\n(\xe2\x89\x88 15 FTEs). Given the small number of Minto 223 65 43 1,194,450\nprojects involved,14 both are capable of Totals 5,876 2,001 1,332 $56,170,412\ndirectly dealing with RUS without Denali as\nthe middleman. Population data per State of Alaska community database\n at http://commerce.alaska.gov\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 5 October 2013\n\n\n\n\nA further example of this fragmented approach is the funding that Denali sends the State for the\n\xe2\x80\x9cemerging energy technology fund,\xe2\x80\x9d a creation of the Alaska Legislature.15 Though Denali has\none seat on the State\xe2\x80\x99s panel that scores the grant applications, this use already exists as a state\nprogram independently of Denali.\n\nWhen Congress sends Denali the funding to\n EXHIBIT 4\nbuild bush clinics, the appropriation flows\nto Denali through the U.S. Department of SMALL SETTLEMENTS WITH\n DENALI-FUNDED ROADS AND DOCKS\nHealth and Human Services. Denali usually\nsends it on to (1) the state health depart- \xe2\x80\x9cPERSONS DENALI\n HOUSE-\nment, (2) regional health corporations that SETTLEMENT\n POP.\n HOLDS\n IN SPENDING\n (2012) POVERTY\xe2\x80\x9d THRU\noperate hospitals, or (3) the Alaska Native (2010)\n (2011) AUG. 9, 2013\nTribal Health Consortium (a nonprofit\n Elfin Cove 39 13 10\ncreated by Congress).16 Again, these recip- False Pass 39 15 0\n $263,046\n 1,912,803\nients are far more technically sophisticated Igiugig 52 16 13 466,107\nthan Denali\xe2\x80\x99s tiny staff. And, again, these Takotna 53 22 28 272,910\nrecipients are quite capable of directly Atka 64 24 5 1,123,118\n Port Alexander 66 22 6 767,519\ndealing with the cabinet-level funder with-\n Stevens Village 67 26 31 1,161,514\nout Denali as a broker. Chenega Bay 68 31 8 1,971,566\n Pilot Point 68 27 2 165,000\nCongress has sometimes funded a training Northway 77 27 37 500,000\nprogram at Denali, who has usually sent this Pelican 82 41 3 1,044,962\n Tatitlek 83 36 12 367,000\nmoney on to the state labor department or Akhiok 87 19 27 208,794\nthe University of Alaska.17 Once again, the Eagle 87 41 12 1,167,083\nState is capable of directly receiving this Pitkas Point 102 31 48 434,395\nmoney without Denali as an intermediary. Perryville 112 38 46 238,332\n Circle 113 40 37 769,814\n Manley Hot Sprgs 116 41 21 1,963,313\nAnd sometimes Congress has funded a Diomede 121 38 84 600,000\ntransportation program at Denali through Gulkana 122 36 0 1,800,000\nthe USDOT appropriation.18 The projects Kobuk 141 36 59 252,993\nhave then been selected by a board Nondalton 169 57 104 218,378\n Kokhanok 170 52 39\nappointed by Alaska\xe2\x80\x99s governor, a board Ouzinkie 178 56 68\n 264,285\n 1,000,000\nthat could directly be hosted by the State Coffman Cove 181 89 6 1,764,028\nrather than Denali. For half of the selected Nunam Iqua 206 43 58 1,172,364\nprojects,19 Denali has sent its funding on to Old Harbor 206 84 50 2,200,000\n Cantwell 207 104 10 604,249\nthe State or another federal agency to do the\n Mekoryuk 210 70 49 571,450\nactual construction (such as the Corps of Gakona 214 86 9 1,648,032\nEngineers or FHWA). This circular delivery Seldovia 242 121 24 345,164\nsystem signals a further question as to what Totals 3,742 1,382 906 $ 27,238,219\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s layer adds to the process.\n Population data per State of Alaska community database\n at http://commerce.alaska.gov\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 6 October 2013\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 5\n Displacement of nonfederal funders KEY QUESTIONS FROM\n DENALI\xe2\x80\x99S DECADE AND A BILLION\nA state economist reported that Alaska ranks\nfirst in the nation in its per capita receipt of\n Are better clinic buildings resulting in better\nfederal grants, and fourth in federal contracts.20 health care?\n\nHowever, a year ago Congress expanded Are Denali-provided power plants resulting in\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s flexibility to tap funding from cheaper \xe2\x80\x9cbush\xe2\x80\x9d electricity?\nnonfederal sources \xe2\x80\x94 such as the State,\n Are Denali-provided tank farms resulting in\ncharitable foundations, and Alaska Native cheaper \xe2\x80\x9cbush\xe2\x80\x9d fuel?\ncorporations.21 Though OIG\xe2\x80\x99s reports have\nrecommended that Congress add this flexi- Is training for construction projects resulting in\nbility,22 Denali has so far made little progress long-term careers?\nin diversifying its funding beyond federal\n Are Denali-provided facilities reducing \xe2\x80\x94\nsources. versus extending \xe2\x80\x94 the dependence on future\n federal funding?\nAt this point, OIG recommends that Congress\nno longer send Denali an annual \xe2\x80\x9cbase appro- Has Denali pioneered \xe2\x80\x9csilver bullet\xe2\x80\x9d solutions\npriation.\xe2\x80\x9d This will give Denali an incentive to applicable to other states?\nleave the federal nest and chart its own course Do projects function as capacity-building\nas a non-federal entity. \xe2\x80\x9cbarn raisings\xe2\x80\x9d (versus mere short-term cash\n infusions)?\nThis will also give the State of Alaska an\nincentive to find and fund its own solutions for Has Denali leveraged rural schools as the\n major local facility?\nthe residents of \xe2\x80\x9cbush\xe2\x80\x9d Alaska \xe2\x80\x94 as it should.\nAlaska has an oil-based savings account whose Has Denali effectively partnered with the\nearnings help fund the state government.23 military as the state\xe2\x80\x99s largest employer?\nAlaska has no personal income tax and no state\nsales tax. Has Denali effectively leveraged federal single\n audits as a grants monitoring tool?\n\nIn contrast to taxation, Alaska pays every Has Denali strengthened regional hubs as an\nresident an annual \xe2\x80\x9cdividend\xe2\x80\x9d that has so far alternative to urban migration?\nranged up to $2,069.24 And this is significant to\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s projects, since these dividend pay- Has Denali pioneered interventions for\n troubled projects (versus just adding money)?\nments are considered politically \xe2\x80\x9cuntouchable\xe2\x80\x9d\nas a potential match to Denali grants in even Is Denali helping coastal communities benefit\nthe smallest of unincorporated settlements. from the opening of new arctic shipping\nOIG has written before that national support routes?\nfor Denali might be more encouraged by\n Have Denali projects preserved \xe2\x80\x9cpriceless\xe2\x80\x9d\nprojects in \xe2\x80\x9cmicro-settlements\xe2\x80\x9d that are per- qualities of Alaska that are valued by the rest\nceived as local \xe2\x80\x9cbarn-raisings,\xe2\x80\x9d rather than as of the nation?\nentitlements or seasonal cash injections.25 _____________________\n Reprinted from Denali OIG, Semiannual\n Report to the Congress (May 2010), page 41.\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 7 October 2013\n\n\n THE CASE FOR CONTINUING\n THE DENALI COMMISSION\n\nThe strongest argument for continuing the agency occurred with little fanfare in the final weeks\nof FY 2013. The CFO negotiated $6 million of interagency agreements in which Denali will sell\nits expertise to four other federal agencies. And OMB\xe2\x80\x99s documentation of this transferred\nfunding now shows it as an available resource, rather than mere brainstorming and good\nintentions.26\n\nThe CFO\xe2\x80\x99s eleventh-hour success in securing these transfers is consistent with both the Economy\nAct and Denali\xe2\x80\x99s expanded authority for diversified funding that Congress authorized a year\nago.27 It also shows that Denali can indeed find self-support \xe2\x80\x94 should Congress choose to\neliminate the disincentive of the annual \xe2\x80\x9cbase appropriation\xe2\x80\x9d that Denali has learned to expect.\n\n\n THE LORE OF THE LAYER\n\nDespite Denali protests to the contrary, OIG\xe2\x80\x99s position is neither new nor a surprise. OMB,\nCBO, and OIG have over the years questioned the need for Denali as a pass-through layer and a\n\xe2\x80\x9cregional\xe2\x80\x9d commission that serves only the single state of Alaska.\n\nA tedious dose of string quotations is the best way to show readers the longstanding debate over\nDenali\xe2\x80\x99s future.\n\nNine years ago\n\nNine years ago, two conditions caused OMB to rate Denali as merely \xe2\x80\x9cadequate\xe2\x80\x9d in the publicly-\nreported PART evaluation:\n\n The program lacks adequate evaluations that assess program impact.\n\n [T]he program's activities are duplicative of other federal programs that address\n the same needs and provide the same types of assistance.28\n\nSix years ago\n\nSix years ago, OIG posed the following question in our Semiannual Report to the Congress:29\n\n The federal system is populated with many small, specialized agencies. Implicitly\n lurking in GAO [government-wide] discussions is the perennial issue of whether\n it would be more efficient and effective \xe2\x80\x9cgovernance\xe2\x80\x9d for any given task to be\n directly accomplished by a cabinet-level department. . .\n\n By the end of 2007, Congress will have funded its Denali Commission experiment\n with close to $1 billion. The omnipresent question thus looms as to what Alaskans\n have received through this experiment that they would otherwise have gone\n without. In other words, what outcomes made the commission more than a\n ceremonial layer?\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 8 October 2013\n\n\n\n\nFour years ago\n\nFour years ago, OMB issued its report of recommended \xe2\x80\x9cTerminations, Reductions, and\nSavings.\xe2\x80\x9d30 Of the 57 \xe2\x80\x9cdiscretionary terminations\xe2\x80\x9d on OMB\xe2\x80\x99s national list (page 2), three\nspecifically targeted the Denali Commission:\n\n Denali Access, Department of Transportation\n Denali Job Training, Department of Labor\n Denali Commission, Department of Health and Human Services\n\nThe report section entitled \xe2\x80\x9cTermination: Denali Access\xe2\x80\x9d (page 20) asserts OMB\xe2\x80\x99s position as\nfollows:\n\n This program is duplicative of other highway formula funding that can be used\n for the same activities. Regional set asides such as this one are over and above\n formula allocations that allow States to set their own priorities and address local\n and regional needs.\n\nAnd the report section entitled \xe2\x80\x9cTermination: Denali Job Training\xe2\x80\x9d (page 21) asserts OMB\xe2\x80\x99s\nposition as follows:\n\n This narrow-purpose funding is redundant and unnecessary, and there is no\n evidence that Denali Commission training programs improve employment\n outcomes for participants. . .\n\n The Denali earmark is duplicative of funding that Alaska receives through other\n Federal workforce development programs. . .\n\n Furthermore, there is little accountability for job training activities funded\n through this earmark. Unlike other Department of Labor programs, the Denali\n Commission job training initiatives are not required to report on the employment\n outcomes of participants, so there is little information to determine whether these\n initiatives are producing positive results.\n\nAlso four years ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)31 issued a report that explicitly\nidentifies elimination of the Denali Commission as an option for the reduction of federal\nspending.32 CBO described the argument in support of this option as follows:\n\n The federal government provides annual funding to three regional development\n agencies: the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), the Denali Commission,\n and the Delta Regional Authority. . .\n\n The three agencies\xe2\x80\x99 programs are intended, among other things, to create jobs,\n improve rural education and health care, develop utilities and other\n infrastructure, and provide job training. However, it is difficult to assess whether\n such outcomes can be attributed to those programs rather than to the work of\n other governmental and nongovernmental organizations or to market forces and\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 9 October 2013\n\n\n the effects of general economic conditions.\n\n An argument in favor of this option is that ending federal funding of the agencies\n would shift more responsibility for supporting local or regional development to\n the states and communities whose citizens benefit most from that development.\n Another rationale is that Appalachia, rural Alaska, and the Mississippi Delta are\n three among many needy regions in the United States, and they should not have a\n special claim to federal support. In that view, any federal development aid they do\n receive should come from nationwide programs, such as those overseen by the\n Economic Development Administration.\n\nCBO above cites the argument for increased state and local contributions. This is a particularly\nsensitive issue for Denali\xe2\x80\x99s defenders since its federal funding hasn\xe2\x80\x99t historically been leveraged\nwith state money to the degree found at other major regional commissions.33\n\n\nThree years ago\n\nThree years ago, OIG wrote the following in our Semiannual Report to the Congress: 34\n\n [T]he Denali Commission\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cmost serious management and performance\n challenge\xe2\x80\x9d at the moment is to justify to Congress why the agency should\n continue to exist. . .\n\n Alaskans sometimes argue that facilities have been constructed that would still be\n missing but for Denali\xe2\x80\x99s presence on the scene. While there is no question that\n Denali has built many buildings in many remote places, this also misses the real\n question.\n\n To draw upon the popular saw, whether a little agency is \xe2\x80\x9cdoing things right\xe2\x80\x9d\n (correctly moving money) differs from the tougher question as to whether an\n agency is \xe2\x80\x9cdoing the right things\xe2\x80\x9d (solving long-term public problems).\n\n The most critical public questions may be the dozen or so listed in Exhibit 5. . .\n\nExhibit 5 from that semiannual report is reprinted above at page 6.\n\n\n\n EPILOGUE\n\nReports that a federal experiment has run its course are difficult, and unpopular, ones for any\ninspector general to write. The resistance of Denali\xe2\x80\x99s beneficiaries to these reports, while\nunderstandable, reflects the classic scenario of shooting the messenger, tackling the referee, or\nberating the pathologist who has to convey the news one would prefer not to hear.\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 10 October 2013\n\n\n\n\nThe scenario is also reminiscent of Stephen Covey\xe2\x80\x99s parable from the popular management\nculture of the 1980s:\n\n [E]nvision a group of producers cutting their way through the jungle with\n machetes. They\xe2\x80\x99re the producers, the problem solvers. They\xe2\x80\x99re cutting through\n the undergrowth, clearing it out.\n\n The managers are behind them, sharpening their machetes, writing policy and\n procedure manuals, holding muscle development programs, bringing in improved\n technologies and setting up working schedules and compensation programs for\n machete wielders.\n\n The leader is the one who climbs the tallest tree, surveys the entire situation, and\n yells, \xe2\x80\x9cWrong jungle!\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n But how do the busy, efficient producers and managers often respond? \xe2\x80\x9cShut up!\n We\xe2\x80\x99re making progress.\xe2\x80\x9d 35\n\nIn summary, OIG recommends that Congress eliminate Denali\xe2\x80\x99s annual \xe2\x80\x9cbase appropriation\xe2\x80\x9d as\nthe beginning of its needed transition into a locally-controlled, nonfederal status.\n\n\n MIKE MARSH\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DENALI COMMISSION\n\n\n\n\n Notes\n1\n See www.denali.gov.\n2\n See section 6 of H.R. 6478 from the 112th Congress.\n3\n See GAO, Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x94Work Incentives Planning and Assistance Program (WIPA) and Protection and\nAdvocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security Program (PABSS), # B-323433 (Aug. 14, 2012), at www.gao.gov.\n4\n See Inspector General Act sec. 5(a)(6).\n5\n See Denali OIG, Semiannual Report to the Congress (May 2010), pages 35-37, 40-42, at www.oig.denali.gov; \xe2\x80\x9cInspector\nGeneral\xe2\x80\x99s Perspective on Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Denali Commission\xe2\x80\x9d in the 2009 Performance\nand Accountability Report; OMB\xe2\x80\x99s recommended \xe2\x80\x9cTerminations, Reductions, and Savings,\xe2\x80\x9d pages 2, 20, 21, 33 in the Budget\nof the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2010 at www.gpo.gov; OMB, Program Assessment of Denali Commission, at\nhttp://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10002338.2004.html (PART assessment from 2004); Con-\ngressional Budget Office, Budget Options, vol. 2 (August 2009), sec. 450-5, page 106, at www.cbo.gov.\n6\n See Denali OIG, Semiannual Report to the Congress (May 2012), page 5, and Denali OIG, Semiannual Report to the Congress\n(May 2010), pages 9-10. Both are published at www.oig.denali.gov.\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 11 October 2013\n\n\n\n\n7\n See 45 USC 1203-1204.\n8\n Congress initiated the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium in section 325 of P.L. 105-83, and the entity then organized as a\nnonprofit corporation under Alaska law.\n9\n See the Denali Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Budget Justification for FY 2011, FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014.\n10\n Denali Commission Five Year Strategic Plan (2005-2009), page 3 (emphasis added).\n11\n Per 7 USC 918a(a)(2), Congress authorizes the USDA Rural Utilities Service to transfer funding to the Denali Commission \xe2\x80\x9cto\nacquire, construct, extend, upgrade, and otherwise improve energy generation, transmission, or distribution facilities\xe2\x80\x9d in\ncommunities with high energy costs. While such transfers lie within USDA\xe2\x80\x99s discretion, Denali has historically received them as\na substantial source of its funding.\n12\n The Alaska Energy Authority. See www.akenergyauthority.org.\n\n13\n The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. See www.avec.org.\n14\n See the Denali Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Budget Justification for FY 2011, FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014.\n15\n See Alaska Statutes 42.45.375, which establishes the State\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cemerging energy technology fund.\xe2\x80\x9d\n16\n Per Denali\xe2\x80\x99s online public database of its projects, Denali\xe2\x80\x99s grants for 346 out of its 376 \xe2\x80\x9cprimary care\xe2\x80\x9d projects (92%) went to\nthese three types of grantees. See www.denali.gov (accessed June 22, 2013).\n17\n Per Denali\xe2\x80\x99s online public database of its projects, Denali\xe2\x80\x99s grants for 274 out of its 309 training projects (89%) went to these\ntwo grantees. See www.denali.gov (accessed June 22, 2013).\n18\n Congress amended Denali\xe2\x80\x99s enabling act to authorize transportation projects based upon selection by a panel of experts\nappointed by the state\xe2\x80\x99s governor. See Denali Commission Act sec. 309, as amended by P.L. 109-59 sec. 1960, 119 Stat. 1144,\n1516.\n19\n Per Denali\xe2\x80\x99s online public database of its projects, Denali\xe2\x80\x99s funding for 119 out of its 235 transportation projects (51%) was\nsent on to these recipients. See www.denali.gov (accessed June 22, 2013).\n20\n See Neal Fried, \xe2\x80\x9cFederal Spending in Alaska,\xe2\x80\x9d Alaska Economic Trends (Feb. 2012), pages 4-8, available online at http://\nlabor.state.ak.us/trends/feb12.pdf.\n21\n See section 1520 of P.L. 112-141.\n22\n See Denali OIG, Semiannual Report to the Congress (May 2012), pages 1-2, 5-7, and Denali OIG, Semiannual Report to the\nCongress (Nov. 2011), page 17. Both are published at www.oig.denali.gov.\n23\n The Alaska Permanent Fund \xe2\x80\x94 see www.apfc.org.\n24\n See http://pfd.alaska.gov/DivisionInfo/SummaryApplicationsPayments.\n25\n See Denali OIG, Semiannual Report to the Congress (May 2007), page 6, at www.oig.denali.gov.\n26\n OMB approved Denali\xe2\x80\x99s final SF 132 apportionment for FY 2013, which shows $6,650,000 in spending authority from\nanticipated collections and reimbursements.\n27\n See section 1520 of P.L. 112-141.\n28\n OMB, Program Assessment of Denali Commission, at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/\n10002338.2004.html (PART assessment from 2004).\n29\n See Denali OIG, Semiannual Report to the Congress (Nov. 2007), pages 17-18, at www.oig.denali.gov.\n30\n See \xe2\x80\x9cTerminations, Reductions, and Savings,\xe2\x80\x9d (May 11, 2009), pages 2, 20, 21, 33 in Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal\nYear 2010 at www.gpo.gov.\n\x0cDenali IG semiannual report 12 October 2013\n\n\n\n\n31\n The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is the professional staff agency in Congress that advises the body on budgetary\noptions.\n32\n See Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options, vol. 2 (August 2009), sec. 450-5, page 106 at www.cbo.gov.\n33\n Appalachian Regional Commission and Delta Regional Authority.\n34\n See Denali OIG, Semiannual Report to the Congress (May 2010), pages 35, 42, at www.oig.denali.gov.\n35\n See Stephen Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989), page 101.\n\x0c"


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 21.7.2012
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 217/31
 A Közszolgálati Törvényszék (első tanács) 2012. május 24-i végzése — Alionescu kontra Bizottság
 (F-91/11. sz. ügy)
 (Közszolgálat - Felvétel - Nyílt versenyvizsga - A pályázatok benyújtásának határidejét meghosszabbító határozat - A panasz hiánya - Nyilvánvaló elfogadhatatlanság)
 2012/C 217/66
 Az eljárás nyelve: angol
 Felek
 Felperes: Ciprian-Calin Alionescu (Etterbeek, Belgium) (képviselő: M. Stănculescu ügyvéd)
 Alperes: Európai Bizottság
 Az ügy tárgya
 Az EPSO által az EPSO/AD/206–207/11 nyílt versenyvizsga keretében hozott azon határozat megsemmisítése iránti kérelem, amelyben a pályázatok benyújtásának határidejét hat órával meghosszabbította.
 A végzés rendelkező része
 1.
 A Közszolgálati Törvényszék a keresetet mint nyilvánvalóan elfogadhatatlant elutasítja.
 2.
 C-C. Alionescu maga viseli saját költségeit.


text:
Sukriukės žvejybai už mažą kainą - Superlaimikis.lt | Žūklės reikmenys
 Pagrindinis > Žūklės reikmenys>Dirbtiniai masalai>Sukriukės
 SavaGear (18)
 Sukriukė DAM FZ Standart Spinner Copper B. Dot
 Sukriukė DAM FZ Standart Spinner Black Yellow
 Sukriukė DAM FZ Standart Spinner Gold B. Dot
 Sukriukė DAM FZ Standart Spinner Silver B. Dot
 Sukriukė DAM FZ Standart Spinner Black Green
 Sukriukė DAM FZ Standart Spinner Black Red
 Sukriukės Holo Select Classic Contra
 Sukriukė BLUE FOX Vibrax Bullet Nr.0 4g
 Sukriukė DAM EFFZETT® Std. reflect 4g 2
 Sukriukė DAM EFFZETT® Nature 3D 3g 1
 Sukriukė DAM EFFZETT® Std. reflect 3g 1
 Sukriukė DAM FZ Predator Spinner Fire Shark
 Sukriukė DAM FZ PREDATOR Red Glitter 3-17g
 Sukriukė DAM EFFZETT® Nature 3D 6g 3
 Sukriukė DAM EFFZETT® Std. reflect 6g 3
 Sukriukė DAM FZ PREDATOR Silver Glitter 3-17g
 Sukriukė DAM EFFZETT® Std. reflect 10g 4
 Sukriukės Jaxon Holo Select Satis
 Sukriukė DAM FZ Standart...
 Sukriukės Holo Select...
 Ši sukriukių serija turi kiek platesnę plokštelę. Išdažymas identiškas kaip klasikinių sukriukių. Labai gražiai dirba vandenyje, spalvų gama labai puikiai vilioja plėšrūnus tiek jūroje tiek stovinčiuose vandenyse.
 Sukriukė BLUE FOX Vibrax...
 Jaxon Holo Select Garon - Tai sukriukės su sunkesniu korpusu. Su šiuom sukriukėm rekomenduoja žvejoti plėšrūnus gilesniuose vietose.Įsigykite.
 Didelis, tobulų ir subalancuotų sukriukių pasirinkimas. Visi modeliai turi plokšteles su holografiniu išbaigimu, tai suteikia sukriukėms galimybę sukurti daug įvairių šviesos atspindžių vandenyja ir leidžia dar tikroviškiau imituoti gyvos žuvelės atspindžius. Dizainas, konstrukcija ir medžiagos naudotos kuriant šias sukriukes garantuoja puikų masalo darbą.


text:
 29.7.2006
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 178/8
 2006 m. birželio 8 d. Teisingumo Teismo (šeštoji kolegija) sprendimas Europos Bendrijų Komisija prieš Prancūzijos Respubliką
 (Byla C-164/05) (1)
 (Valstybės įsipareigojimų neįvykdymas - Direktyva 2001/19/EB - Profesinių kvalifikacijų pripažinimo bendrosios sistemos - Abipusis diplomų, pažymėjimų ir kitų dokumentų pripažinimas - Slaugytojas, dantų gydytojas, veterinarijos gydytojas, akušeris, architektas, vaistininkas ir gydytojas - Neperkėlimas per nustatytą terminą)
 (2006/C 178/12)
 Proceso kalba: prancūzų
 Šalys
 Ieškovė: Europos Bendrijų Komisija, atstovaujama D. Maidani ir H. Støvlbæk
 Atsakovė: Prancūzijos Respublika, atstovaujama G. De Bergues ir C. Bergeot-Nunes
 Dalykas
 Valstybės įsipareigojimų neįvykdymas — Nuostatų, būtinų įgyvendinti 2001 m. gegužės 14 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2001/19/EB, iš dalies keičiančią Tarybos direktyvas 89/48/EEB ir 92/51/EEB dėl profesinių kvalifikacijų pripažinimo bendrosios sistemos, ir Tarybos direktyvas 77/452/EEB, 77/453/EEB, 78/686/EEB, 78/687/EEB, 78/1026/EEB, 78/1027/EEB, 80/154/EEB, 80/155/EEB, 85/384/EEB, 85/432/EEB, 85/433/EEB ir 93/16/EEB dėl bendrosios praktikos slaugytojo, dantų gydytojo, veterinarijos gydytojo, akušerio, architekto, vaistininko ir gydytojo profesijų (OL L 206, p. 1) nepriėmimas
 Rezoliucinė dalis
 1.
 Nepriėmusi 2001 m. gegužės 14 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvos 2001/19/EB, iš dalies keičiančios Tarybos direktyvas 89/48/EEB ir 92/51/EEB dėl profesinių kvalifikacijų pripažinimo bendrosios sistemos, ir Tarybos direktyvas 77/452/EEB, 77/453/EEB, 78/686/EEB, 78/687/EEB, 78/1026/EEB, 78/1027/EEB, 80/154/EEB, 80/155/EEB, 85/384/EEB, 85/432/EEB, 85/433/EEB ir 93/16/EEB dėl bendrosios praktikos slaugytojo, dantų gydytojo, veterinarijos gydytojo, akušerio, architekto, vaistininko ir gydytojo profesijų 1–4 ir 9–13 straipsnius įgyvendinančių įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų, Prancūzijos Respublika neįvykdė įsipareigojimų pagal šią direktyvą.
 2.
 Priteisti iš Prancūzijos Respublikos bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 (1) OL C 115, 2005 5 14.


type: wikipedia

text:
Puchar Kontynentalny w skokach narciarskich 2004/2005 – rozpoczął się 4 grudnia 2004 w Rovaniemi, a zakończył 12 marca 2005 w Zakopanem. Zakończenie planowane było na dzień kolejny, lecz z powodu niekorzystnych warunków atmosferycznych zawody zostały odwołane. Zwycięzcą cyklu został Norweg Anders Bardal. Pozostałe miejsca na podium zajęli dwaj Austriacy Balthasar Schneider i Stefan Thurnbichler.
 Zwycięzcy
 Kalendarz i wyniki
 Opracowano na podstawie
 Statystyki indywidualne
 Klasyfikacja końcowa
 Opracowano na podstawie
 1. Anders Bardal (Norwegia)
 2. Balthasar Schneider (Austria)
 3. Stefan Thurnbichler (Austria)
 4. Thomas Lobben (Norwegia)
 5. Manuel Fettner (Austria)
 6. Mathias Hafele (Austria)
 7. Tsuyoshi Ichinohe (Japonia)
 8. Jan Mazoch (Czechy)
 9. Kalle Keituri (Finlandia)
 10. Jon Aaraas (Norwegia)
 11. Roland Müller (Austria)
 12. Rok Urbanc (Słowenia)
 13. Antonín Hájek (Czechy)
 14. Takanobu Okabe (Japonia)
 15. Bastian Kaltenböck (Austria)
 16. Janne Happonen (Finlandia)
 17. Joonas Ikonen (Finlandia)
 18. Christian Bruder (Niemcy)
 19. Robert Kranjec (Słowenia)
 20. Kazuya Yoshioka (Japonia)
 21. Yūsuke Kaneko (Japonia)
 22. Primož Pikl (Słowenia)
 23. Jussi Hautamäki (Finlandia)
 24. Choi Yong-jik (Korea Płd.)
 25. Kimmo Yliriesto (Finlandia)
 26. Martin Koch (Austria)
 27. Reinhard Schwarzenberger (Austria)
 28. Herman Huczkowski (Finlandia)
 29. Jure Bogataj (Słowenia)
 30. Christoph Lenz (Austria)
 31. Yukio Sakano (Japonia)
 32. Lauri Hakola (Finlandia)
 33. Mario Kürschner (Niemcy)
 34. Christian Nagiller (Austria)
 35. Risto Jussilainen (Finlandia)
 36. Stefan Kaiser (Austria)
 37. Stefan Pieper (Niemcy)
 38. Kamil Stoch (Polska)
 39. Nejc Frank (Słowenia)
 40. Kim Hyun-ki (Korea Płd.)
 41. Ferdinand Bader (Niemcy)
 42. Morten Solem (Norwegia)
 43. Lukáš Hlava (Czechy)
 44. Andreas Wank (Niemcy)
 45. Jurij Tepeš (Słowenia)
 46. Emmanuel Chedal (Francja)
 47. Paweł Urbański (Polska)
 47. Jure Radelj (Słowenia)
 47. Daniel Lackner (Austria)
 50. David Lazzaroni (Francja)
 51. Erik Simon (Niemcy)
 52. Bine Zupan (Słowenia)
 53. Olav Magne Dønnem (Norwegia)
 53. Florian Liegl (Austria)
 55. Julian Musiol (Niemcy)
 56. Maximilian Mechler (Niemcy)
 57. Stefano Chiapolino (Włochy)
 57. Dmitrij Ipatow (Rosja)
 57. Dmitrij Wasiljew (Rosja)
 60. Damjan Fras (Słowenia)
 60. Rafał Śliż (Polska)
 62. Veli-Matti Lindström (Finlandia)
 63. Hiroki Yamada (Japonia)
 64. Choi Heung-chul (Korea Płd.)
 65. Fumihisa Yumoto (Japonia)
 65. Krystian Długopolski (Polska)
 67. Alessio Bolognani (Włochy)
 68. Masahiko Harada (Japonia)
 69. Ilja Roslakow (Rosja)
 70. Nicolas Dessum (Francja)
 71. Eirik Ulimoen (Norwegia)
 72. Lucas Vonlanthen (Szwajcaria)
 73. Tomisław Tajner (Polska)
 73. Erik Lyche Solheim (Norwegia)
 73. Sebastian Colloredo (Włochy)
 76. Michael Nagiller (Austria)
 76. Hans Petrat (Niemcy)
 78. Matevž Šparovec (Słowenia)
 78. Martin Cikl (Czechy)
 80. Damien Maitre (Francja)
 81. Piotr Czaadajew (Białoruś)
 82. Gorazd Robnik (Słowenia)
 83. Primož Zupan (Słowenia)
 84. Anže Damjan (Słowenia)
 85. Ildar Fatkullin (Rosja)
 85. Juha-Matti Ruuskanen (Finlandia)
 87. Anders Johnson (USA)
 88. Gregory Baxter (Kanada)
 89. Bine Norčič (Słowenia)
 89. Vincent Descombes Sevoie (Francja)
 89. Dienis Korniłow (Rosja)
 92. Kai Bracht (Niemcy)
 92. Piotr Żyła (Polska)
 94. Wojciech Skupień (Polska)
 94. Isak Grimholm (Szwecja)
 96. Marcin Bachleda (Polska)
 97. Kang Chil-ku (Korea Płd.)
 98. Jakob Grimholm (Szwecja)
 99. František Vaculík (Czechy)
 100. Thomas Schwall (USA)
 101. Stefan Rammerstorfer (Austria)
 102. Daniel Klausmann (Niemcy)
 103. Mitja Mežnar (Słowenia)
 103. Brian Welch (USA)
 105. Anssi Koivuranta (Finlandia)
 106. Pawieł Karielin (Rosja)
 106. Tomáš Kyncl (Czechy)
 108. Jure Šinkovec (Słowenia)
 108. Jan Vacula (Czechy)
 108. Primož Roglič (Słowenia)
 108. Marco Steinauer (Szwajcaria)
 112. Yūta Watase (Japonia)
 112. Kim René Elverum Sorsell (Norwegia)
 112. Stefan Hula (Polska)
 115. Marc Krauspenhaar (Niemcy)
 115. Tian Zhandong (Chiny)
 115. Gerald Wambacher (Austria)
 118. Severin Freund (Niemcy)
 118. Sōta Okamura (Japonia)
 120. Nico Faller (Niemcy)
 121. Stefan Read (Kanada)
 122. Nicolas Fettner (Austria)
 123. Mateusz Rutkowski (Polska)
 123. Marc Vogel (Szwajcaria)
 123. Logan Gerber (USA)
 123. Wojciech Topór (Polska)
 127. Borek Sedlák (Czechy)
 128. Yūsuke Endō (Japonia)
 129. Michael Glasder (USA)
 129. Hans Christen Pettersen (Norwegia)
 131. Clint Jones (USA)
 131. Robert Fatkulin (Rosja)
 133. Asan Tachtachunow (Kazachstan)
 133. Arthur Pauli (Austria)
 133. Jaka Oblak (Słowenia)
 133. Ryōhei Nishimori (Japonia)
 137. Wojciech Tajner (Polska)
 138. Branko Iskra (Słowenia)
 138. Hartman Rector (USA)
 138. Harri Olli (Finlandia)
 138. Jim Denney (USA)
 138. Kyle Kessler (USA)
 138. Christoph Höss (Szwajcaria)
 144. Rémi Santiago (Francja)
 144. Guido Landert (Szwajcaria)
 144. Tim Nelson (USA)
 147. Roman Koudelka (Czechy)
 147. Florian Knaus (Austria)
 147. Andreas Vilberg (Norwegia)
 147. Kazuyoshi Sakurai (Japonia)
 147. Maksim Anisimau (Białoruś)
 152. Andrea Morassi (Włochy)
 152. Michal Doležal (Czechy)
 152. Michal Pšenko (Słowacja)
 152. Yasuhiro Shibata (Japonia)
 152. Wołodymyr Boszczuk (Ukraina)
 152. Jarkko Heikkonen (Finlandia)
 158. Tom Hilde (Norwegia)
 158. Børge Gellein Blikeng (Norwegia)
 158. Marco Beltrame (Włochy)
 161. Christoph Strickner (Austria)
 161. Dominik Bafia (Kanada)
 161. Trond-Arild Evensen (Norwegia)
 164. Michael Nell (Kanada)
 164. Taku Takeuchi (Japonia)
 164. Georgi Żarkow (Bułgaria)
 167. Petyr Fyrtunow (Bułgaria)
 167. Iwan Karaułow (Kazachstan)
 Kwoty startowe
 Na podstawie Kontynentalnej Listy Rankingowej (CRL) wyznaczono kwoty startowe dla poszczególnych krajów na dane periody Pucharu Kontynentalnego 2004/2005. Kwota oznacza maksymalną liczbę reprezentantów, którą dany kraj ma prawo wystawić w zawodach.
 Poniżej wykaz kwot startowych, przysługujących danym krajom w poszczególnych periodach. Państwa, których nie podano w poniższej tabeli mogły wystawić do każdego konkursu co najwyżej dwóch skoczków.
 Informacje o periodach
 I period: Letni Puchar Kontynentalny w skokach narciarskich 2004
 II period: 4 grudnia – 19 grudnia (6 konkursów)
 III period: 26 grudnia – 9 stycznia (6 konkursów)
 IV period: 14 stycznia – 23 stycznia (5 konkursów)
 V period: 29 stycznia – 27 lutego (10 konkursów)
 VI period: 5 marca – 12 marca (3 konkursy)
 Statystyki
 Najczęściej na podium konkursów stawał Anders Bardal – 10 razy. Co najmniej jedno miejsce w pierwszej trójce zawodów w ciągu sezonu zajęło 41 zawodników z 12 krajów.
 Przypisy
 Puchar Kontynentalny w skokach narciarskich
 2004 w sportach zimowych
 2005 w sportach zimowych


text: b' United States Department of State\n\n The luspeNor GNwral\n\n\n\n\n December 16, 20 13\n\n\n\nBoard of Governors\nBroadcasting Board of Governors\n330 Independence Avenue SW, Room 3360\nWashington, DC 20237\n\nDear Members of the Board:\n\nAn independent certified public accounting firm, Kearney & Company, P.C., was engaged to\naudit the consolidated financial statements of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) as of\nSeptember 30, 2013, and for the year then ended; to provide a report on intemal control over\nfinancial repmting; and to report any reportable noncompliance with laws, regulations, contracts,\nand grant agreements it tested. The contract required that the audit be performed in accordance\nwith U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards and Office of Management and\nBudget audit guidance.\n\nJn its Independent Auditor \xc2\xb7s Report on the Broadcasting Board of Governors 2013 Financial\nSlatements (AUD-FM-IB-14-14), Kearney & Company found\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the consolidated financ ial statements present fair ly, in all material respects, the\n fmancial position of BBG as of September 30, 2013, and its net cost of operations,\n changes in net position, and budgetary resources for the year then ended, in\n accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of\n America;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 three material weaknesses 1 in internal control over financial reporting; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 instances of reportable noncompliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant\n agreements tested.\n\nThe BBG 2012 consolidated financial statements were audited by a predecessor auditor whose\nreport, dated November 16, 2012, expressed an unqualified opinion on those statements. The\npredecessor auditor reported on the consolidated financ ial statements of the prior period before\nrestatement.\n\n\n1\n A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a\nreasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity\'s financial statements will not be prevented, or\ndetected and corrected, on a timely basis.\n\x0cAs part of Kearney & Company"s audit of the 2013 consolidated financial staLCments, Keamey\n& Company also audited the adjustments that were applied by BBG to restate its 2012\nconsolidated financial statements. ln Kearney & Company\'s opinion, such adjustments are\nappropriate and have been properly applied. Kearney & Company was not engaged to audit the\nBBG 2012 consolidated financial statements other than with respect to the adjustments and,\naccordingly. Kearney & Company does not express an opinion or any other fonn of assurance on\nthe 2012 consolidated financial statements as a whole.\n\nKearney & Company is responsible for the enclosed auditor\'s report, which includes the\nIndependent Auditor\'s Report, U1e Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, and the\nReport on Compliance With Applicable Provisions of Laws, Regulations, Contracts, and Grant\nAgreements, dated December 14, 2013, and U1e conclusions expressed in the report. The Office\nofl nspector General (O !G) docs not express an opinion on BBG\'s consolidated unancial\nstatements or conclusions on internal control over financial reporting and compliance wiU1laws,\nregulations, contracts. and grant agreements.\n\n1380\'s comments on the aud itor\'s report are attached to the report.\n\nOJG appreciates the cooperation extended to it and Kearney & Company by BBG managers and\nstaff during this audit.\n\nSincerely,\n\n\n\n\nInspcctor General\n\nEnclosure: As stated.\n\ncc: Leslie Hyland, BBG/CFO\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c 1701 Duke Street, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314\n PH: 703.931.5600, FX: 703.931.3655, www.kearneyco.com\n\n\n INDEPENDENT AUDITOR\xe2\x80\x99S REPORT\n AUD-FM-IB-14-14\n\nTo the Board of Governors and the Inspector General of the Broadcasting Board of Governors\n\nReport on the Financial Statements\n\nWe have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of the Broadcasting Board\nof Governors (BBG), which comprise the consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2013,\nthe related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position and the combined\nstatement of budgetary resources for the year then ended, and the related notes to the\nconsolidated financial statements (hereinafter referred to as the \xe2\x80\x9cconsolidated financial\nstatements\xe2\x80\x9d).\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Responsibility for the Financial Statements\n\nManagement is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these consolidated\nfinancial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United\nStates of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control\nrelevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from\nmaterial misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.\n\nAuditor\xe2\x80\x99s Responsibility\n\nOur responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on\nour audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in\nthe United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in\nGovernment Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and\nOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 14-02, Audit Requirements for Federal\nFinancial Statements. Those standards and OMB Bulletin No. 14-02 require that we plan and\nperform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial\nstatements are free from material misstatement.\n\nAn audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and\ndisclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s\njudgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial\nstatements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor\nconsiders internal control relevant to the entity\xe2\x80\x99s preparation and fair presentation of the financial\nstatements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate under the circumstances, but\nnot for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity\xe2\x80\x99s internal control.\nAccordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness\nof accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by\nmanagement, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0cWe believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a\nbasis for our audit opinion.\n\nOpinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements\n\nIn our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all\nmaterial respects, the financial position of BBG as of September 30, 2013, and its net cost of\noperations, changes in net position, and budgetary resources for the year then ended, in\naccordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.\n\nEmphasis of Matters\n\nAs discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, in FY 2013, BBG adopted new\naccounting guidance issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) \xe2\x80\x93\nspecifically, Technical Bulletin 2006-1, Recognition and Measurement of Asbestos-Related\nCleanup Costs. In addition, as discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, BBG\nchanged its method of reporting actuarial liabilities and benefit plan assets relating to after-\nemployment benefits provided to Foreign Service National overseas staff in FY 2013. Our\nopinion is not modified with respect to these matters.\n\nOther Matters\n\nFY 2012 Financial Statements Audited by a Predecessor Auditor\n\nBBG\xe2\x80\x99s consolidated financial statements as of, and for the year ended, September 30, 2012, were\naudited by a predecessor auditor whose report, dated November 16, 2012, expressed an\nunqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. The predecessor auditor reported\non the prior period consolidated financial statements before restatement.\n\nAs part of our audit of the FY 2013 consolidated financial statements, we also audited the\nadjustments described in Note 18 that were applied to restate the FY 2012 consolidated financial\nstatements. These notes describe the amount of the restatements and the effect on the financial\nstatements. In our opinion, such adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied.\nWe were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to BBG\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2012 consolidated\nfinancial statements other than with respect to the adjustments, and accordingly, we do not\nexpress an opinion or any other form of assurance on the FY 2012 consolidated financial\nstatements as a whole. Our Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting includes a\ndiscussion of the significant internal control deficiencies that failed to prevent or detect the\nmisstatements.\n\nRequired Supplementary Information\n\nAccounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Discussion and Analysis and Deferred Maintenance (hereinafter referred to as\n\xe2\x80\x9crequired supplementary information\xe2\x80\x9d) be presented to supplement the consolidated financial\n\n\n 2\n\x0cstatements. Such information, although not a part of the consolidated financial statements, is\nrequired by OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, and FASAB, which\nconsider it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the consolidated financial\nstatements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied\ncertain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing\nstandards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of\nmanagement about the methods of preparing the information and comparing it for consistency\nwith management\xe2\x80\x99s responses to our inquiries, the consolidated financial statements, and other\nknowledge we obtained during our audits of the consolidated financial statements. We do not\nexpress an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures\ndo not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.\n\nOther Information\n\nOur audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial\nstatements as a whole. The Message from the BBG Chairman, the Performance Information, the\nLetter from the Chief Financial Officer, the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Statement on FY 2012\nManagement and Performance Challenges, the Agency Response to the Management and\nPerformance Challenges, the Summary of Financial Statement Audit and Management\nAssurances, and the Improper Payments Information Act Reporting are presented for purposes of\nadditional analysis and are not a required part of the consolidated financial statements. Such\ninformation has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the\nconsolidated financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any\nassurance on it.\n\nOther Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards\n\nIn accordance with Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 14-02, we have also\nissued reports, dated December 14, 2013, on our consideration of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s internal control over\nfinancial reporting and on our tests of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with certain provisions of laws,\nregulations, contracts, and grant agreements for the year ended September 30, 2013. The\npurpose of those reports is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial\nreporting and compliance and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on internal\ncontrol over financial reporting or on compliance. Those reports are an integral part of an audit\nperformed in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of\nAmerica, Government Auditing Standards, and OMB Bulletin No. 14-02, in considering BBG\xe2\x80\x99s\ninternal control over financial reporting and compliance.\n\n\n\n\nAlexandria, Virginia\nDecember 14, 2013\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c 1701 Duke Street, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314\n PH: 703.931.5600, FX: 703.931.3655, www.kearneyco.com\n\n\n INDEPENDENT AUDITOR\xe2\x80\x99S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER\n FINANCIAL REPORTING\n\nTo the Board of Governors and the Inspector General of the Broadcasting Board of Governors\n\nWe have audited the consolidated financial statements of the Broadcasting Board of Governors\n(BBG) as of and for the year ended September 30, 2013, and have issued our report thereon\ndated December 14, 2013. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards\ngenerally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits\ncontained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United\nStates; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 14-02, Audit Requirements\nfor Federal Financial Statements.\n\nInternal Control Over Financial Reporting\n\nIn planning and performing our audit of the consolidated financial statements, we considered\nBBG\xe2\x80\x99s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit\nprocedures that are appropriate under the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our\nopinion on the consolidated financial statements but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion\non the effectiveness of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on\nthe effectiveness of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s internal control. We limited our internal control testing to those\ncontrols necessary to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 14-02. We did not\ntest all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal\nManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial Integrity Act of 1982, such as those controls relevant to ensuring efficient\noperations.\n\nOur consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding\nparagraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be\nmaterial weaknesses or significant deficiencies; therefore, material weaknesses or significant\ndeficiencies may exist that were not identified. However, as described in the following sections,\nwe identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses\nand significant deficiencies.\n\nA deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow\nmanagement or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to\nprevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a\ndeficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable\npossibility that a material misstatement of the entity\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements will not be prevented,\nor detected and corrected, on a timely basis. We consider the following deficiencies in BBG\xe2\x80\x99s\ninternal control to be material weaknesses.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c Material Weaknesses\n\nI. Grantee Monitoring and Accounting for Grant Advances\n\nBBG has three grantees that it funds through annual grant agreements: Radio Free Europe/Radio\nLiberty, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks. The grantees are responsible\nfor developing broadcast content (radio and television news programs), which is distributed by\nBBG. The three grantees annually receive approximately one third of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s funding. We\nidentified control deficiencies relating to BBG\xe2\x80\x99s management of its grantees that, when\ncombined, constituted a material weakness in internal control. The individual deficiencies we\nidentified are summarized as follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Grantee Monitoring \xe2\x80\x93 BBG is responsible for monitoring how its grantees use BBG funds\n to ensure the grantees adhere to relevant laws and regulations as well as the terms and\n conditions specified in the grant agreements. BBG\xe2\x80\x99s process for overseeing grantee\n activities and compliance consisted mainly of maintaining a binder for each grantee that\n contained signed grant agreements, amendments, financial plans, funding requests,\n payment vouchers, and the monthly financial reports prepared by each grantee.\n Although, BBG was maintaining binders for each grantee, we noted the following\n instances where BBG did not sufficiently monitor the three grantees:\n\n o BBG did not have specific procedures in place for post-award monitoring to\n ensure grantees were not using Federal awards for unallowable costs.\n o BBG did not obtain and review property listings for all grantees. The property\n listing obtained from one grantee lacked the necessary information to reconcile to\n accounting records, and BBG grant officials could not document that follow up\n had been performed.\n o The FY 2012 OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and\n Non-Profit Organizations, audit reports for one grantee identified an issue related\n to unallowable costs. Although BBG was responsible for issuing a management\n decision on this issue, there was no evidence that BBG officials were aware of\n this finding.\n o BBG does not have oversight policies and procedures in place to ensure grantees\n have mandated procurement procedures.\n o BBG\xe2\x80\x99s grant terms and conditions state that grantees should provide advance\n notification of new contracts and leases exceeding certain thresholds for BBG\n approval. No documentation was provided showing that BBG grant officials\n obtained this required information from the grantees.\n o There was no evidence that the grantees had requested and been provided with\n disposition instructions from BBG concerning disposals of property over a certain\n threshold acquired using Federal funds.\n o There was no evidence of grantee certifications regarding disbarment and\n suspension.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c BBG has developed a handbook to provide guidance to BBG officials about the\n administration and oversight of grants. Although the handbook specifies monitoring\n procedures, it does not define specific roles and responsibilities. In addition, staff\n turnover and the lack of sufficient oversight protocols led to inconsistent execution and\n documentation of grant monitoring. The lack of effective grantee oversight procedures\n increases the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse of Federal funds.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Grant Advances \xe2\x80\x93 We found that BBG did not record funds advanced to its grantees in its\n annual financial statements. Our review of the grantees\xe2\x80\x99 financial statements identified\n significant cash balances provided by BBG that, according to accounting principles,\n should be reported as advances by the grant-making organization. Instead, BBG recorded\n an expense as soon as the funds were transferred to the grantees. Because BBG did not\n have a sufficient process in place to monitor its grantees, BBG officials did not have a\n complete understanding of grantee operations and financial management practices and\n were unaware that the grantees had significant unused funds.\n\n As a result of our findings, BBG requested financial information from the grantees,\n which should have been easy for the grantees to provide, in order to report the required\n grant advances in BBG\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements. According to BBG officials, the grantees\n did not provide requested information in a timely manner to facilitate the preparation of\n BBG\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements. Because BBG\xe2\x80\x99s grantees were unwilling or unable to\n provide the requested information, BBG had no alternative but to consider other methods,\n which were less precise, to estimate the material grant advances. Based on the material\n misstatement identified during the audit, BBG restated its FY 2012 financial statements.\n\nII. Property, Plant, and Equipment\n\nAs of September 30, 2013, BBG reported over $100 million in net property, plant, and\nequipment (PP&E), which included real and personal property. We identified control\ndeficiencies with BBG\xe2\x80\x99s PP&E processes that, when combined, constituted a material weakness\nin internal control. The individual deficiencies we identified are summarized as follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recording Transmitting Stations as Assets \xe2\x80\x93 BBG facilitates its broadcasting mission by\n using Government-owned transmitters, physical radio stations, and broadcasting stations\n strategically located around the world. We found that BBG had 85 FM radio and 5\n television transmitting stations worldwide that had not been recorded as PP&E. Instead,\n BBG had recorded the costs associated with the transmitting stations as expenses.\n Although BBG had several controls in place to reconcile property inventories and search\n for unrecorded capital assets, the controls did not identify the unrecorded transmitting\n stations. The transmitting stations were being tracked outside of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s primary property\n management system. In addition, there was not an effective communication mechanism\n between the BBG officials that were aware of the costs of the transmitting stations and\n BBG financial reporting staff. As a result of the lack of controls, PP&E and expenses\n were materially misstated. BBG recorded an estimated amount for the transmitting\n stations for its FY 2013 financial statements and restated its FY 2012 financial\n statements.\n\n\n 3\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Removing Assets from Service \xe2\x80\x93 Agencies are responsible for ensuring that PP&E is\n appropriately valued and reported in the financial statements. Assets that are no longer\n providing service to the organization should be written off. We found two transmitting\n facilities that had ceased operations in 2007 and were permanently out of service. At\n these two locations, we identified 22 assets included in BBG\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements that\n were impaired, obsolete, or permanently removed from service. BBG did not have an\n effective process in place to obtain information on assets that had been removed from\n service and, therefore, PP&E and expenses were misstated.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Accounting for Leases \xe2\x80\x93 BBG leases real property in overseas and domestic locations\n under varying types of lease agreements. During FY 2013, BBG had more than 80 leases,\n the majority of which were reported as operating leases. Operating leases allow for the\n use of an asset, but do not convey ownership rights. Capital leases are leases that transfer\n substantially all of the benefits and risks of ownership. We reviewed lease agreements to\n ensure that capital leases were not being inaccurately reported as operating leases. We\n were unable to determine whether all lease agreements were appropriately recorded\n because BBG did not maintain information needed to assess the applicability of capital\n lease criteria. Specifically, BBG did not document the fair market values, economic\n useful lives, present values of future lease payments, or details on lease purchase options.\n\n BBG used a manual data call process to obtain information on leases annually. However,\n the manual data call process was ineffective in obtaining the data needed to assess leases\n for capitalization in accordance with accounting standards. For instance, the data call\n request sent to posts each year did not request all of the necessary information. In\n addition, the data call request was only sent to posts where officials from Headquarters\n were aware a lease existed. Without an effective process to track and assess leases for\n capitalization, property and expenses may be misstated on BBG\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Unrecorded Leasehold Improvements \xe2\x80\x93 Periodically, BBG funds renovations or\n improvements to its leased facilities. BBG capitalizes significant improvements to leased\n facilities that exceed $25,000. We found two renovation projects at leased property that\n were not included in PP&E as required. Instead, BBG had recorded the costs associated\n with these projects as expenses because BBG did not have a process in place to ensure\n that significant leasehold improvements were recorded accurately. As a result PP&E and\n expenses were misstated.\n\nIII. Budgetary Accounting and Funds Control\n\nBBG lacked sufficient reliable funds control over its accounting and business processes to ensure\nbudgetary transactions were properly recorded, monitored, and reported. Our audit identified\ncontrol deficiencies that, when combined, we considered to be a material weakness. The\nindividual deficiencies we identified are summarized as follows:\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 FY 2012 Apportioned Authority \xe2\x80\x93 BBG receives funding through annual appropriations,\n which is apportioned to BBG by OMB. On its statement of budgetary resources (SBR),\n BBG reports the extent to which resources are obligated or unobligated. For unobligated\n balances, BBG is required to further distinguish whether the amounts are apportioned or\n unapportioned. We noted a negative balance of $17 million reported as Apportioned\n Authority on BBG\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2012 SBR, which is an abnormal balance. Upon investigation,\n BBG management noted that the balance should have been approximately $7 million.\n BBG officials indicated that the erroneous apportionment balance was due to the method\n used by BBG\xe2\x80\x99s accounting system to post certain collections and year-end closing\n entries. BBG did not perform effective reviews and comparative analyses of its FY 2012\n financial data, which should have detected the error. Without developing and\n implementing effective routine financial reviews, material errors and anomalies in the\n financial statements may not be identified and corrected. As a result of this material\n error, BBG restated its FY 2012 financial statements.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Timeliness of Obligations \xe2\x80\x93 BBG should record an obligation in its financial management\n system when it enters into an agreement, such as a contract or a purchase order, to\n purchase goods and services. We identified a number of instances where obligations\n were not created in a timely manner, such as obligations that were not recorded within 15\n days of executing obligating document, obligations that were recorded prior to executing\n the obligating document, and obligations that were posted subsequent to the receipt of\n goods and services or the start of the period of performance for a contract. BBG did not\n have an adequate process in place to ensure that its employees were complying with\n Federal requirements related to the creation, approval, and timely recording of\n obligations. Without an effective obligation process, controls to monitor funds and make\n timely payments may be compromised, which may lead to violations of the\n Antideficiency Act and the Prompt Payment Act.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Unliquidated Obligations \xe2\x80\x93 Once recorded, obligations remain open until they are fully\n reduced by disbursements, are deobligated, or until the appropriation funding the\n obligations is cancelled. Unliquidated obligations (ULO) represent the cumulative amount\n of orders, contracts, and other binding agreements for which the goods and services\n ordered have not been received, or the goods and services have been received but payment\n has not yet been made.\n\n We identified numerous invalid ULOs. For domestic obligations, BBG had not\n effectively implemented ULO review procedures. Specifically, BBG officials did not\n perform timely follow-up with program offices to ensure invalid ULOs were identified\n and liquidated. For overseas obligations, BBG did not have a process to obtain a\n population of ULOs or have a standard process to ensure ULOs were periodically\n reviewed for validity. As a result of the identified errors, BBG had an overstatement of\n obligations of $16 million. In addition, funds that could have been used for other\n purposes remained in unneeded obligations.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cThe material weaknesses described above were not identified by BBG\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2013 Federal\nManagers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial Integrity Act assessment.\n\nA significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is\nless severe than a material weakness yet important enough to merit attention by those charged\nwith governance. We consider the following deficiency in BBG\xe2\x80\x99s internal control to be a\nsignificant deficiency.\n Significant Deficiency\n\nI. Information Technology\n\nBBG uses several financial management systems to compile information for financial reporting\npurposes. BBG\xe2\x80\x99s main domestic financial management and accounting system is Momentum,\nwhich is provided by an external service provider. The external service provider is responsible\nfor maintaining a number of information technology (IT) controls. However, Momentum is\naccessed through BBG\xe2\x80\x99s general IT support systems. Therefore, IT deficiencies noted in the\ngeneral systems could potentially impact Momentum as well. For overseas accounting and\nbudget execution, BBG uses the Regional Financial Management System (RFMS) provided by\nthe Department of State (Department). The Department is responsible for maintaining an\nadequate general and application control environment over this system.\n\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG) annually performs an evaluation of BBG and Department\ninformation security program compliance with IT requirements as required by the Federal\nInformation Security Management Act (FISMA).\n\nWe evaluated the internal control structure surrounding the general support systems and key\nfinancial applications used by BBG. We noted weaknesses and vulnerabilities in BBG\xe2\x80\x99s general\nsupport systems and several key financial applications maintained by BBG and the Department.\nWe identified a number of weaknesses that, when combined, we considered to be a significant\ndeficiency. The individual deficiencies noted are as follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 General Support Systems \xe2\x80\x93 Collectively, the control deficiencies noted by OIG in its FY\n 2013 FISMA report 1 related to BBG\xe2\x80\x99s general support systems represented a significant\n deficiency to enterprise-wide security as defined by OMB guidance. OIG reported that\n the most significant security deficiencies were related to BBG\xe2\x80\x99s risk management\n framework, continuous monitoring program, and the incident response and reporting\n program. These control weaknesses impact BBG\xe2\x80\x99s general support system, which is used\n to access the Momentum system.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Domestic Accounting System Access Controls \xe2\x80\x93 As part of our audit, we tested BBG\xe2\x80\x99s\n Momentum system access controls by reviewing whether employees who had separated\n from BBG during FY 2013 had their access to Momentum revoked. [Redacted] (b) (5)\n\n\n\n1\n Audit of the Broadcasting Board of Governors Information Security Program (AUD-IT-IB-14-02, Oct. 2013).\n\n\n 6\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Overseas Accounting System Account Monitoring and Separation of Duties \xe2\x80\x93 OIG\xe2\x80\x99s FY\n 2013 FISMA report 2 for the Department identified deficiencies with the general support\n systems at the Department similar to ones identified at BBG. OIG concluded that the\n issues identified were a significant deficiency to enterprise-wide security. RFMS is\n hosted on the Department\xe2\x80\x99s general support systems.\n\n We also performed testing on RFMS during the audit of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2013\n financial statements and found that the Department did not effectively monitor RFMS for\n suspicious behavior or malfunctions. For example, the Department did not have an\n effective process to log and independently monitor changes to the permissions granted to\n user accounts. In addition, we found deficiencies that impacted the ability of the\n Department to identify and mitigate problems with RFMS users that had incompatible\n duties. Specifically, we found that the Department had not defined many RFMS user\n roles, and we identified RFMS users that had been assigned a combination of roles that\n potentially allowed users to perform end-user accounting transactions.\n\nIn general, we and OIG found that BBG had not implemented effective standards, policies,\nprocesses, and procedures over its information security program, including its financial\napplications. With respect to separated employees with Momentum accounts, we determined\nthat BBG did not have a formal process to communicate employee separations to the Momentum\nsystem administrators. For RFMS, because of the deficiencies noted with the IT security\nprogram at the Department, BBG needs to implement additional controls to ensure that financial\ninformation is being processed accurately and completely by the Department.\n\nPoor controls over IT security can affect the integrity of financial applications, which increases\nthe risk that sensitive financial information could be accessed by unauthorized individuals or that\nfinancial transactions could be altered either accidentally or intentionally. IT weaknesses\nincrease the risk that BBG will be unable to accurately report financial data.\n\nDuring the audit, we noted certain additional matters involving internal control over financial\nreporting that we will report to BBG management in a separate letter.\n\nBBG\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Findings\n\nBBG management has provided its response to our findings in a separate memorandum attached\nto this report. We did not audit management\xe2\x80\x99s response, and accordingly, we express no opinion\non it.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Audit of the Department of State Information Security Program (AUD-IT-14-03, Nov. 2013).\n\n\n 7\n\x0cPurpose of This Report\n\nThe purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over\nfinancial reporting and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on the\neffectiveness of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s internal control. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in\naccordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America,\nGovernment Auditing Standards, and OMB Bulletin No. 14-02, in considering BBG\xe2\x80\x99s internal\ncontrol over financial reporting. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.\n\n\n\n\nAlexandria, Virginia\nDecember 14, 2013\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c 1701 Duke Street, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314\n PH: 703.931.5600, FX: 703.931.3655, www.kearneyco.com\n\n\n INDEPENDENT AUDITOR\xe2\x80\x99S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE\n PROVISIONS OF LAWS, REGULATIONS, CONTRACTS, AND GRANT\n AGREEMENTS\n\nTo the Board of Governors and the Inspector General of the Broadcasting Board of Governors\n\nWe have audited the consolidated financial statements of the Broadcasting Board of Governors\n(BBG) as of and for the year ended September 30, 2013, and have issued our report thereon\ndated December 14, 2013. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards\ngenerally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits\ncontained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United\nStates; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 14-02, Audit Requirements\nfor Federal Financial Statements.\n\nCompliance\n\nAs part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether BBG\xe2\x80\x99s consolidated financial\nstatements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain\nprovisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which\ncould have a direct and material impact on the determination of financial statement amounts, and\ncertain provisions of other laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 14-02 that we\ndetermined were applicable. We limited our tests of compliance to these provisions and did not\ntest compliance with all laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements applicable to BBG.\nHowever, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our\naudit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.\n\nThe results of our tests disclosed instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported\nunder Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 14-02 and which are summarized\nas follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Federal Grant Regulations. BBG is responsible for monitoring the use of funds provided\n to its grantees to ensure the grantees adhere to relevant laws and regulations. As noted in\n our Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, we identified control\n deficiencies that resulted in noncompliance with the following Federal grant regulations:\n\n o OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and\n Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-\n Profit Organizations, sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and\n uniformity among Federal agencies in the administration of grants to non-profit\n organizations.\n o OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations, establishes\n principles for determining the costs of grants, contracts and other agreements with\n non-profit organizations.\n o OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit\n Organizations, sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity\n\n\n 1\n\x0c among Federal agencies for the audit of non-profit organizations expending\n Federal awards.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Prompt Payment Act. This act requires Federal agencies to make payments in a timely\n manner, pay interest penalties when payments are late, and take discounts only when\n payments are made within the discount period. BBG did not always make payments\n within 30 days, as required. Additionally BBG did not always pay interest on payments\n made after the 30-day requirement or accurately calculate the interest that was paid.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act (ADA) prohibits BBG from (1) making or\n authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any\n appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund\n unless authorized by law; (2) involving BBG in any obligation to pay money before funds\n have been appropriated for that purpose, unless otherwise allowed by law; and (3)\n making obligations or expenditures in excess of an apportionment or reapportionment, or\n in excess of the amount permitted by agency regulations. Several potential ADA\n violations have been identified at BBG. We found that BBG recorded an obligation\n related to an annual grant agreement that was in excess of its annual appropriation, which\n is a potential ADA violation. In addition, we noted a BBG fund with a negative balance.\n Finally, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified two practices that were potential\n ADA violations related to the use of personal services contracts and contractors without\n valid contracts in place.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Federal Acquisition Regulation. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the\n primary guidance for Federal acquisitions of supplies and services using appropriated\n funds. OIG is currently conducting an audit of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s acquisition functions. Based on\n the preliminary results of the audit, OIG has identified instances of noncompliance with\n the FAR during pre-solicitation, pre-award, and contract administration phases of the\n acquisition process, including inadequate performance of full and open competition and\n price determination.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Internal Revenue Service Code. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the U.S.\n Government agency responsible for tax collection and tax law enforcement. IRS is\n assessing how BBG processes payments to certain individuals engaged to support BBG.\n The IRS has questioned BBG\xe2\x80\x99s practice of not withholding Federal employment taxes on\n compensation to personal service contractors (PSC) and purchase order vendors (POV).\n The IRS issued a \xe2\x80\x9cnotice of proposed adjustment\xe2\x80\x9d in 2013, concluding that BBG should\n have treated PSCs and POVs as employees, rather than independent contractors, for tax\n purposes. BBG is in the process of responding to the IRS review. However, BBG may\n be liable for employment taxes relating to PSC and POV payments dating back to 2010.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Federal Managers\' Financial Integrity Act \xe2\x80\x93 The Federal Managers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial Integrity\n Act requires executive branch agencies to establish and maintain effective internal\n control. The heads of agencies must annually evaluate and report on the effectiveness of\n the internal control and financial management systems that protect the integrity of\n\n\n 2\n\x0c Federal programs. We found that BBG did not complete its annual evaluation in FY\n 2013.\n\nExcept as noted above, our tests of compliance with the provisions of selected laws, regulations,\ncontracts, and grant agreements disclosed no other instances of noncompliance that would be\nreportable under the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing\nStandards and OMB Bulletin No. 14-02.\n\nDuring the audit, we noted certain additional matters involving compliance that we will report to\nBBG management in a separate letter.\n\nBBG\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Findings\n\nBBG management has provided its response to our findings in a separate memorandum attached\nto this report. We did not audit management\xe2\x80\x99s response, and accordingly, we express no opinion\non it.\n\nPurpose of This Report\n\nThe purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of compliance and the\nresults of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of BBG\xe2\x80\x99s compliance.\nThis report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with auditing standards\ngenerally accepted in the United States of America, Government Auditing Standards, and OMB\nBulletin No. 14-02, in considering BBG\xe2\x80\x99s compliance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable\nfor any other purpose.\n\n\n\n\nAlexandria, Virginia\nDecember 14, 2013\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BROADCASl\'ING BOARD OF GOVERNORS\n UNIT\'ED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\n December 16,2013\n\n The Honorable Steve A. Liuick\n Deputy Inspector General\n Office of Inspector General\n 2201 C StreeL, N.W.\n Washington, DC 20520\n\n Dear Mr. Linick:\n\n\n The Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) is our principal report to the President,\n Congress, and the American people on our stewardship of the public funds to which we have\n been entrusted. Tile PAR is a key element and essential discipline in disclosing the BBG\'s\n financial status !md providing transparency and accountability. "D1e PAR provides a\n comprehensive view of the BBG\'s financial activities set against the backdrop of the global\n issues and engagements we face as a smaJI agency working to advance U.S. broadcasting\n interests abroad.\n\n I am pleased that the I3BG has received an unqualified audit opinion for FY 2013. I recognize\n that there were material weaknesses and significant deficiencies identified during the course of\n audit that will require continued focus and dedication throughout \xc2\xb7 the agency. We remain\n committ.cd to corporate governance and continuing to improve our financial management and\n internal controls. We are dedicated to addressing these items and meeti.t1g these challenges.\n\n Our ultimate goal is to suppo1t an accmmtable and efficient financial platform that furthers the\n BBG\'s global broadcasting operations and mission as well as provide nccurate and high-value\n finuncia l information for decision-makers. Given the global and complex nature of our\n operations, there will always be areas of concern nnd opportunities for improvement. We\n understand that fact, and I am confident in our resolve as we continue to manage the BBG\'s\n .finite resources on behalf of America\'s taxpayers in s upport of U.S. International Broadcasting.\n\n Twant to than k Kew\xc2\xb7ney & Company for their efforts and professionalism in working through the\n many complex issues associated with the BBG\'s financial processes.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n t.,eslie Hyl\n ChiefFinancial Officer\n\n\n330 INDI!PENDJo~CE AVENUE, SW ROOM 3360 COHEN BUUJJING WASlllN(.iUN. DC 20237 (202) 203-4545 FAX (202) 203-4568\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c'