State law calls for an annual financial-compliance audit of the general purpose financial statements and “the financial affairs and transactions of a state agency required to comply with federal government audit requirements…” RubinBrown, under contract with Legislative Post Audit, conducted this two-part audit. The first part was the report on the state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (report R-13-005, released in March 2013). This second part, the Report on Federal Awards in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133, reports on compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements.
The auditors concluded that, except for the Unemployment Insurance program, the state complied, in all material respects, with the requirements applicable to each of the federal programs audited. However, the auditors reported 28 deficiencies in internal control, two of which were material weaknesses. The auditors also projected up to $73.4 million in questioned costs ($65,000 in known questioned costs). Six of the findings were repeated from prior years.
Affordable Airfares: Reviewing the Benefits Claimed As a Result of State Funding to Lower Airfares
Overall, the Affordable Airfare program appears to have had the desired effect. Since Wichita’s original affordable airfare program (FairFares) began in 2002, fares have decreased, while the number of passengers and the number of available flights have increased. However, the Regional Economic Area Partnership’s (REAP) annual reports on the program contain numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies. For example, REAP officials don’t report on everything as required – flight data was only included in one annual report. Further, the economic impact of the program has been significantly overstated because of key methodological errors, such as incorrectly accounting for indirect job creation, and the use of inaccurate data in the base year. These and other errors resulted in the economic impact being significantly overstated. We also found that overall accountability for the State funds is lacking.
State Universities: Can State Universities Provide Postsecondary Education More Efficiently To Reduce Costs? (A K-GOAL Audit)
Our focus was on general-use operating expenditures funded with State General Fund and tuition revenues; we excluded restricted funds like federal grants and student fees, the University of Kansas Medical School, and Kansas State’s Veterinary Medicine School and Extension Programs. In fiscal year 2008, general use operating expenditures per FTE student ranged from $8,330 at Fort Hays State to $14,191 at the University of Kansas. Overall, Emporia State and the University of Kansas spent about $2,000 more per FTE student than their in-State counterparts. The vast majority of the universities’ general use operating expenditures were for education-related expenditures (72% to 85% of the total). Most of the differences in the amounts spent for educational programs appeared to be caused by differences among the six universities in staffing and salary levels. Numerous options exist for delivering universities’ academic programs and courses more economically or efficiently. Actions that universities in other states have reported taking to help reduce academic spending include eliminating or combining low-enrollment course sections, academic departments, or degree programs within universities; collaborating across universities to share course content, teachers, and instructional programs; increasing the number of courses offered online or through distance learning; and increasing faculty workloads. Actions they’ve reported taking to help reduce their institutional spending include maximizing the use of existing classroom and laboratory space to reduce the need for additional space; consolidating or changing administrative functions or processes—both within and across universities; outsourcing some non-academic services such as food service and grounds maintenance; sharing purchasing costs, and reducing energy costs. The State’s six universities have implemented some of these ideas to varying degrees, but there are numerous opportunities for additional efficiencies. Given recent budget cuts, the universities already may have taken some of the actions described in this report.
Compliance and Control Audit: Wichita State University Fiscal Year 1993
The Board of Regents provided only general instructions to its institutions for budgeting Margin of Excellence moneys, but it approved all Margin budget requests before those requests were submitted to the Legislature. Individual institutions' plans for spending their Margin money appeared to comply with their mission statements. Except for Wichita State University, all the Regents' institutions pooled their Margin salary parity and merit pay moneys before distributing any salary increases in fiscal years 1989 and 1990. Tenured or tenure-track faculty at Wichita State and Kansas State Universities received average salary increases of 8-10 percent for 1989 and 1990; University administrators received average raises that were comparable to or less than faculty pay raises. Finally, both Wichita State and Kansas State used their Margin of Excellence program enhancement moneys for a variety of items such as hiring unclassified staff and purchasing library materials and equipment.
Reviewing the Way State Agencies Collect Delinquent Accounts
Statewide requirements for collecting, reporting, and writing off amounts owed to the State have improved somewhat in the past 11 years, but complete information about agencies’ accounts receivable is just beginning to be collected. Most of the six agency programs reviewed are required to follow additional collection procedures that go beyond the State’s minimum requirements, and all of them use the State’s set-off program as part of their collection procedures. Statewide procedures for the management of delinquent accounts and specific agencies’ collection procedures can both be improved.
New faculty members generally have less experience and lower rank than the faculty members they replace, but are paid nearly as much. Universities have some difficulties recruiting qualified applicants for positions; about one-fourth the job offers made were declined. Comparisons show that percentage increases in Regents’ faculty salaries between 1974 and 1985 generally kept up with inflation, but actual salaries and fringe benefits are generally lower than at the Regents’ peer institutions.
This report lists average classes taught and average hours spent each week in class for all levels of instructor, by school and by department. Graduate teaching assistants served as primary instructors for two-thirds of the 768 courses they were assigned to, mostly in math and English.