Compliance with Applicable University
Policies, Procedures and Other Forms of Guidance
We will learn and abide by University andcampus policies and procedures that affect our campus roles
-
This means that each member of the campus community
- Gains familiarity and transacts business in conformity with applicable University policies and procedures
Perspective: A Real World Illustration
An October 2003 Chattanooga (Tennessee) Times Free Press newspaper article reported on the release of a 96-page state comptroller's audit of a public university located in Tennessee. It details irregularities occurring during a former president's 14-month tenure.
The comptroller's audit shows that the president instructed his secretary to delete several items on his calendar that detailed his personal travel from November 2002 through May 2003 aboard the university airplane and on commercial flights that were paid by the university.
The comptroller's audit reported that the president claimed the trips to Louisville, Ky., and Birmingham, Ala., "were primarily business-related."
A state legislator and a fiscal review member said the audit shows a pattern of skirting the rules of the state and university. "Analysis of his travel indicated that on at least four occasions, the trips were wholly or primarily personal in nature," the audit states.
"I don't think he considered it criminal," the legislator said. "I think he was just so arrogant that he thought he could spend that kind of tax dollars without having his hand called on it. We didn't realize how blatant he had been about covering up what he did."
The comptroller's audit stated that the former president was given "unfair advantages" in the private recruitment search. The audit notes that two people leading the private recruitment search were given executive positions at the university after the president was installed, giving "the appearance of impropriety." They both resigned in September 2003 when the internal audit was made public.
A university internal audit disclosed that the $493,137 renovation of the president's residence was done piecemeal, thereby avoiding necessary approvals from the university's board of trustees or other state commissions, which must approve projects exceeding $100,000.
In addition, the former president failed to provide the necessary receipts for determining business and personal charges on a university credit card, and the university treasurer's office failed to take appropriate action when informed of this. As a result, the university paid a total of $4,964.92 for personal charges, most of which were not reimbursed until they were brought to the ex-president's attention by the internal auditors.
When questioned by the internal auditors as to why the name of a female president of another university appeared on his hotel bill from San Antonio, Texas, the former president initially stated that he had given his room to the other university president for her convenience at a conference they were both attending, and he stayed with friends. The former president later admitted that he and the other president actually shared the hotel room and arranged with the hotel to split the bill, and that he initially misrepresented the situation in an effort to protect the other university president.
The audit went on to mention that while the trustees do not appear to have had any knowledge of the former president's questionable activities or to have condoned his activities, several members of the university's upper management appear to have known about some of the former president's questionable activities but failed to take effective action, including notifying the university's board of trustees.
Last Revised 5/23/2006