type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. Department of Agriculture\n Office of Inspector General\n Southeast Region\n Audit Report\n\n\n\n\n Florida Agricultural and Mechanical\nUniversity - Specific Cooperative Agreement\n for Establishment of a Science Center\n\n\n\n\n Report No.\n 02007-1-At\n MARCH 2003\n\x0cMarch 31, 2003\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n FLORIDA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY -\n SPECIFIC COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR\n ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCIENCE CENTER\n\n AUDIT REPORT NO. 02007-1-AT\n\n In February 2000, Agricultural Research\n RESULTS IN BRIEF Service (ARS) entered into a Specific\n Cooperative Agreement (SCA) with Florida\n Agricultural and Mechanical University\n (FAMU). The purpose of the agreement was to provide funding to\n establish a Science Center (SC) at FAMU. The main purpose of the SC is\n to produce Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) graduates in biology and\n chemistry so they may pursue careers in agricultural research. As of\n November 30, 2001, FAMU had expended $930,431 of the\n $1,750,386 awarded for the SC initiative through fiscal year 2001. The\n SCA is an ongoing long-term effort and funding is anticipated to be about\n $875,000 annually.\n\n ARS requested that we review FAMU\'s internal controls, Federal fund\n expenditures, and program management in connection with its\n responsibilities under the SCA. ARS wanted to ensure that the SCA\n initiative was properly focused, consistent with the intent of the original\n appropriation, and had controls in place to accomplish mutual program\n objectives. ARS had been unable to evaluate the progress of the SC\n initiative because of inadequate FAMU reporting. In July 2001, ARS had\n suspended FAMU draws of Federal funds until it met SCA reporting\n requirements. At completion of our fieldwork in May 2002, the suspension\n was still in place.\n\n Our review found that FAMU charged $560,371 of ineligible and\n unsupported costs to the SCA\'s (see exhibit A). The questioned charges\n occurred because FAMU did not have administrative control procedures to\n ensure SCA objectives were being achieved and that expenditures were\n appropriate, reasonable, and accurate. For the period February 1, 2000,\n through November 30, 2001, FAMU charged $930,431 to the SCA\'s. We\n questioned $560,371 of the charges because they were for personnel and\n equipment costs associated with ineligible research projects, instructors\'\n salaries that did not increase FAMU\'s teaching capacity in the SC\n curricula, prohibited and erroneous administrative costs, and equipment\n purchases that were not approved by ARS.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page i\n\x0c Since the SC initiative began in February 2000, FAMU had not worked\n with ARS to develop a strategic plan to address how the multiple\n objectives of the SCA would be achieved. Although the first 2 years of\n operations may be characterized as start up, FAMU had allocated no\n funding to the primary objective of the SCA \xe2\x80\x93 development of Ph.D.\n programs in biology and chemistry to provide a source of future\n agricultural research scientists. FAMU had not developed a SC\n implementation plan that contained (1) priorities, goals, and timeframes for\n implementation of the multiple objectives; (2) statements of the scope of\n work to meet those goals and timeframes; and (3) a process or\n methodology for measuring accomplishments and reporting progress in\n achieving the goals. The SCA did not require written plans for achieving\n the SC objectives. As a result ARS cannot determine that FAMU\xe2\x80\x99s level of\n effort towards accomplishing the SCA objective was commensurate with\n the SCA funds it received.\n\n We made a series of recommendations for\n KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FAMU to improve its administrative controls\n over the program. We also recommended\n that ARS (1) recover, disallow, and/or\n evaluate post justifications, as appropriate, for the $560,371 of questioned\n expenses and (2) work with FAMU to develop a formal plan for\n implementing the SC objectives that includes strategies, priorities, scopes\n of work, timeframes, and methods for measuring accomplishments.\n\n In its March 17, 2003, response to the draft\n AGENCY RESPONSE report, ARS stated that it had requested\n advice and guidance from the Office of the\n General Counsel and would be providing a\n response to each of the findings and recommendations. (See exhibit F.)\n\n The response did not address specific actions\n OIG POSITION planned to implement the recommendations.\n To accept your management decision, we\n need details and timeframes for implementing\n the corrective actions.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page ii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................i\n RESULTS IN BRIEF....................................................................................................i\n KEY RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................ii\n AGENCY RESPONSE ...............................................................................................ii\n OIG POSITION...........................................................................................................ii\nINTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1\n BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................1\n OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................2\n SCOPE .......................................................................................................................2\n METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................3\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................4\nCHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................4\nFAMU NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN CONROLS OVER SCA PROGRAM AND FISCAL\nACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................4\nFINDING NO. 1 ..............................................................................................................4\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 ......................................................................................7\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 ......................................................................................7\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 ......................................................................................7\n FINDING NO. 2 ..........................................................................................................7\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 ....................................................................................12\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 ....................................................................................13\n FINDING NO. 3 ........................................................................................................13\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 ....................................................................................14\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 7 ....................................................................................15\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 8 ....................................................................................15\nCHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................16\nFAMU NEEDS TO DEVELOP AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE SC .............16\nFINDING NO. 4 ............................................................................................................16\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 9 ....................................................................................18\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page iii\n\x0cEXHIBIT A \xe2\x80\x93 SUMMARY OF MONETARY RESULTS ................................................19\nEXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 EMPLOYMENT COSTS FOR INELIGIBLE SCA RESEARCH\nPROJECTS..................................................................................................................20\nEXHIBIT C \xe2\x80\x93 QUESTIONED ADJUNCT PROFESSOR/INSTRUCTOR AND\nGRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT COSTS...........................................................21\nEXHIBIT D \xe2\x80\x93 OTHER INELIGIBLE EMPLOYMENT COSTS CHARGED TO\nTHE SCA .....................................................................................................................23\nEXHIBIT E \xe2\x80\x93 QUESTIONED NON-EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT PURCHASES ........24\nEXHIBIT F \xe2\x80\x93 ARS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT........................................28\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page iv\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is\n BACKGROUND the principal in-house research agency of the\n U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ARS\n research has long been associated with higher\n production and more environmentally sensitive farming techniques. ARS is\n also committed to the support and development of the next wave of\n scientific expertise through Higher Education Programs. One such USDA\n program is the 1890 Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building\n Grants Program. This competitive program builds the institutional capacity\n of historically Black, 1890 land-grant institutions through cooperative\n linkages with Federal and non-Federal entities. The program also serves\n as a means to attract minority students into the food and agricultural\n sciences, expand the linkages among the1890 institutions and with other\n colleges and universities, and strengthen the teaching and research\n capacity of institutions to more firmly establish them as full partners in the\n food and agricultural science and education system.\n\n Parallel with this program, in February 2000, ARS awarded a Specific\n Cooperative Agreement (SCA)1, to the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical\n University (FAMU). The purpose of the agreement was to provide funding\n to establish a Science Center (SC) at FAMU. The main purpose of the SC\n is to produce Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) graduates with degrees in\n biology and chemistry interested in agricultural research careers. Other\n objectives included agricultural research training in the areas of food\n science, animal, plant, and marine sciences; partnering with ARS in\n providing experiential learning opportunities for the SC graduate students\n in ARS research laboratories; conducting cooperative research projects of\n mutual interest; and building capacity in the biology, chemistry, and\n agricultural sciences. The SCA is anticipated to be an ongoing long-term\n cooperative effort.\n\n In February 2000, ARS awarded FAMU $865,875 for a SCA (Agreement\n No. 58-6615-8-022) for the purposes of cooperating in research to develop\n biological controls for insects and establish a SC at the university. In July\n 2001, ARS and FAMU entered into a new agreement (Agreement No. 58-\n 6601-1-001) that separated the SC initiative from the biological control\n initiative. The fiscal year (FY) 2001 award of $884,511 was put into the\n new SCA solely for SC activities. The total award for the two SCA\'s was\n $1,750,386. Table 1 shows the SCA budget and actual expenditures as of\n November 30, 2001.\n1\n Under the authority of 7 United States Code (U.S.C). 3318(b).\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 1\n\x0c Table 1\n Agreement No. Agreement No.\n 58-6615-8-022 58-6601-1-001\n Budgeted Expended Budgeted Expended\n Personnel $400,660 $463,883 $763,781 $37,436\n Equipment $410,000 $282,944 $38,750 -0-\n Materials\n and Supplies $35,000 $131,895 $52,980 $7,219\n Travel $20,215 $7,054 $24,000 -0-\n Publication\n Costs -0- -0- $5,000 -0-\n Total $865,875 $885,776 $884,511 $44,655\n\n As of November 30, 2001, FAMU had charged $930,431 to the two SCA\'s\n of which $76,817 was for the biological control initiative and $853,614 was\n for the SC initiative. At the completion of our fieldwork in May 2002,\n FAMU had been reimbursed $63,150 for the biological control initiative\n and $613,300 for the SC initiative. The remaining $13,667 of biological\n control expenditures and $240,314 of SC expenditures were pending\n reimbursement due to ARS\' suspension of funding in July 2001. In\n addition to suspending reimbursements, at the same time ARS requested\n this audit and in cooperation with FAMU created a Steering Committee to\n review SC research projects for compliance with the SCA. These actions\n were taken because of ARS\' concerns the program was not implemented\n consistent with the intent of the original appropriation.\n\n ARS requested that we review FAMU\'s\n OBJECTIVES internal controls, Federal fund expenditures,\n and program management in connection with\n its responsibilities under the SCA. ARS\n wanted to ensure that the SCA initiative was properly focused, consistent\n with the intent of the original appropriation, and had controls in place to\n accomplish mutual program objectives.\n\n The audit was conducted in accordance with\n SCOPE generally accepted government auditing\n standards. Funds totaling $1,750,386 were\n awarded to meet the objectives of the\n SCA for \xe2\x80\x9cBiological Control of Insect Pests\xe2\x80\x9d; and the SCA for the \xe2\x80\x9cFlorida\n A&M University Science Center of Excellence." We examined\n the management, disbursement, accounting, and propriety of expenditures\n of $930,431 FAMU charged to the two SCA accounts as of November 30,\n 2001.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 2\n\x0c Audit fieldwork was conducted from January 8, 2002, to April 26, 2002.\n The work was performed at the ARS South Atlantic Area office in Athens,\n Georgia, and at facilities of FAMU located in Tallahassee, Florida.\n\n\n To accomplish the audit objectives we:\n METHODOLOGY\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed applicable ARS and FAMU officials and staff.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed and evaluated legislative history, regulations, policies\n and procedures, as well as objectives, requirements, and\n instructions contained in the SCA\'s.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Identified, reviewed, and evaluated FAMU\'s administrative controls\n for ensuring compliance with the SCA.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed FAMU\'s program and accounting records pertinent to the\n SCA.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Inventoried non-expendable equipment purchased with SCA funds\n and evaluated its use.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Analyzed FAMU expenditures for eligibility.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 3\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\n CHAPTER 1 FAMU NEEDS TO STRENGTHEN CONROLS OVER\n SCA PROGRAM AND FISCAL ACTIVITIES\n\n FAMU charged $560,371 of ineligible and unsupported costs to the SCA\'s.\n The questioned charges occurred because FAMU did not have\n administrative control procedures to ensure SCA objectives were being\n achieved and that expenditures were appropriate, reasonable and\n accurate. For the period February 1, 2000, through November 30, 2001,\n FAMU charged $930,431 to the SCA\'s of which $76,817 was for the\n biological control initiative and $853,614 was for the SC initiatives. We\n found that the charges for the biological control initiative were generally\n proper. Of the $853,614 charged for the SC initiatives, we questioned\n $560,371 (66 percent) because the charges were for personnel and\n equipment costs associated with ineligible research projects, instructors\'\n salaries that did not build FAMU\'s teaching capacity in the SC curricula,\n prohibited and erroneous administrative costs, and equipment purchases\n that were not approved by ARS (see exhibit A).\n\n FAMU did not have administrative control\n FINDING NO. 1 procedures to ensure that (1) SCA objectives\n were being achieved; (2) expenditures were\n FAMU HAD NOT DEVELOPED appropriate, reasonable, and accurate; and\n ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS (3) progress reports submitted to ARS\n OVER SCA ACTIVITIES contained sufficient information to assess the\n progress. As a result, $560,371 of program\n expenditures were questioned because the projects and activities they\n were spent on were ineligible.\n\n The cooperator must comply with standards for financial management\n systems for recipients of Federal funds (grants, cooperative agreements)\n contained in Federal regulations. Cooperators must also have effective\n internal controls to ensure that expenditures financed with Federal funds\n are properly chargeable to the grant supported project."2\n\n The SCA required FAMU to work closely with ARS in developing and\n performing mutually agreed to research projects, developing plans of work\n to be performed, and identifying graduate students for experimental\n learning opportunities working with ARS scientists. To facilitate this\n\n2\n 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 3015, section 3015.61 (c), effective January 1, 2001.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 4\n\x0c cooperation between the university and ARS, the agreement called for\n designating a FAMU employee as the principal investigator (PI)\n responsible for coordinating the SC efforts to accomplish the SCA\n objectives.\n\n The SCA also required FAMU to submit quarterly progress reports to\n ARS. The reports were to include progress in accomplishing established\n goals, problems encountered or occurrence of unusual or favorable\n developments during the report period, and a summary of work to be\n accomplished in the next reporting period.\n\n Control Procedures\n\n Even though the Dean of the College of Engineering Sciences,\n Technology, and Agriculture was the PI designated to oversee SC\n activities, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences directed the work\n and managed the funds of the SC. FAMU and the Dean of the College of\n Arts and Sciences did not keep the PI informed of SC activities. The Dean\n of the College of Arts and Sciences (the SC Director), did not coordinate\n with the PI in (1) planning and conducting SC work,\n (2) developing research projects, (3) managing SCA funds, and\n (4) preparing progress reports to ARS. The PI wanted some of the\n research funds to go to the school of agriculture but none were allocated\n to it. The PI did not know the SC initiative had begun until he contacted\n ARS in the fall of 2000 to inquire about the SCA status.\n\n FAMU did not have a methodology for tracking (1) costs by SCA objective,\n initiative, and research project; (2) progress on each activity; and (3)\n graduate students\xe2\x80\x99 progress towards obtaining a degree in a field of\n mutual interest to ARS. Examples were:\n.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FAMU used a standard cost accounting system which accumulated\n cost by account number and broad object codes (i.e., personnel).\n FAMU did not have procedures to track cost by SCA initiative (i.e.,\n research projects) and staff did not review monthly financial data to\n ensure that costs were relevant to an objective of the SCA and the\n amounts charged to the SCA were correct. According to the\n designated PI, he tried to get the financial data and analyze it but\n the university would not provide it to him.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The university grants professors release time from teaching classes\n to do research if outside funds (i.e., SCA) are available to hire\n replacement adjunct faculty to pick up the course load. FAMU\n claimed $210,511 reimbursement for the release time of\n 10 professors who worked on SC research projects. Instead of\n using those funds to hire replacement faculty, the university\n claimed $96,993 for the costs of the adjunct faculty to increase\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 5\n\x0c teaching capacity. FAMU staff could not tell us how the release\n time funds were used to the benefit of the SC or how the adjunct\n faculty increased teaching capacity.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 FAMU could not show us how much each research project had cost\n so far, what research accomplishments have benefited ARS, and\n what graduate students worked on which projects and what they\n did.\n\n As reported in Findings Nos. 2 and 3, most of the expenditures claimed for\n reimbursement for the SC were ineligible because research projects were\n not eligible, teaching capacity was not increased, and equipment\n purchases were not approved by ARS in advance. In addition, some\n costs were charged to the SCA in error but were not detected because the\n SC Director did not periodically review them.\n\n Progress Reporting\n\n FAMU was required to submit quarterly performance/progress reports to\n ARS. The reports FAMU submitted to ARS did not address\n accomplishments or plans for most of the SCA objectives. The reports\n were required to (1) compare actual accomplishments with goals\n established for the reporting period, (2) state the reasons for any slippage\n in meeting objectives, (3) outline problems encountered or the occurrence\n of unusual or favorable developments during the period, and (4) briefly\n summarize work to be accomplished during the next reporting period.\n Reports should be organized by SCA objective and work activity so that\n the reviewers can determine that all objectives and work were included\n and could evaluate accomplishments or lack thereof for each objective.\n\n Between February 2000 and January 2002, FAMU submitted five reports\n that did not fully address SCA objectives and accomplishment of goals for\n the reporting period. The first three reports contained several paragraphs\n on the general accomplishments of the SC but did not provide details. For\n example, one report contained a statement that, \xe2\x80\x9cGraduate students\n assisted in teaching laboratories and building laboratories of interest.\n Faculty taught courses, planned research, and purchased some\n equipment and supplies.\xe2\x80\x9d The report (1) did not list any goals for these\n activities during the period; (2) did not provide any details about who were\n the graduate students and faculty, what courses they taught, what\n laboratories they helped build and what they did to help build them, what\n research was planned, what equipment was purchased, and the costs\n associated with the accomplishments; and (3) did not relate the\n accomplishments to SCA objectives.\n\n The last two reports did not describe overall accomplishments for the SC.\n Although the September 25, 2001, report did discuss the research\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 6\n\x0c projects, the USDA members of the Steering Committee found it did not\n provide enough information to evaluate how the projects contributed to\n achieving the SCA objective. The reports did not adequately describe the\n work to be performed in the next progress reporting period because work\n was described in general terms and no period for accomplishing the work\n was stated.\n\n Require FAMU to develop and implement\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 procedures that require expenditures be\n reviewed and approved by the designated PI\n before they are submitted for reimbursement.\n\n Require FAMU to track costs by SCA\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 objective and individual project.\n\n\n Require FAMU to submit quarterly progress\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 reports that include accomplishments, reasons\n for any slippage in meeting objectives,\n problems encountered, and a summary of\n work to be accomplished during the next reporting period.\n\n ARS Response\n\n In its March 17, 2003, response to the draft report, ARS stated that it had\n requested advice and guidance from the Office of the General Counsel\n (OGC) and would be providing a response to each of the findings and\n recommendations. (See exhibit F.)\n\n OIG Position\n\n The response did not address specific actions planned to implement the\n recommendations. To accept your management decision, we need details\n and timeframes for implementing the corrective actions.\n\n FAMU charged the SCA for salaries and\n FINDING NO. 2 associated employee benefits for (1) time its\n staff spent on ineligible research projects;\n FAMU CHARGED INELIGIBLE (2) professors, adjunct instructors, and\n EMPLOYEE EXPENSES TO THE graduate students who taught core courses\n SCA without building teaching capacity; and\n (3) other ineligible work. Before commencing\n the SC initiatives, FAMU officials did not work\n with ARS or the PI in planning the activities and projects to be performed\n to ensure compliance with the SCA objectives. In addition, they did not\n review monthly expenditures for propriety. As a result, FAMU charged\n $290,628 of questioned salary and benefit costs to the SCA account.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 7\n\x0c The primary objective of the SCA3 was to establish a SC at FAMU that\n would produce Ph.D. degrees in biology and chemistry to train career\n agricultural research scientists; partner with ARS to provide experiential\n learning opportunities for SC graduate students; and develop cooperative\n research projects of mutual interest with ARS. In addition, the agreement\n called for capacity building to support the mission of training students in\n biology, chemistry, and agricultural sciences. The purpose for funding\n "capacity building" is to strengthen the teaching and research capacity in\n the food and agricultural science and education system similar to the\n 1890 Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants\n Program4. The SCA stated that no administrative costs would be\n reimbursed and the university would provide staff necessary to support the\n SC.\n\n As of November 30, 2001, FAMU had charged $501,319 to the SCA\n account for personnel costs associated with 48 employees. The charges\n were for time professional and administrative staff and student assistants\n spent working on research projects, administrative and teaching duties,\n and other activities. Our review questioned the propriety of $290,628 of\n the $501,319 in personnel costs and associated benefits charged to the\n SC account. (See table 2.)\n\n Table 2\n Personnel Activities Charges Questioned\n Research Projects - professors/scientists,\n graduate assistants, and research\n assistants $345,067 $134,376\n Capacity Building Teaching - professors,\n adjunct instructor, and graduate assistants 96,993 96,993\n Administrative/Other 59,259 59,259\n Total $501,319 $290,628\n\n Further details are presented below and in exhibits B, C, and D.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Personnel Costs Charged for Ineligible SCA Research Projects\n\n Between February 1, 2000, and November 30, 2001, the SC charged\n $345,067 in personnel costs to the SCA for work related to\n 10 research projects. Of that amount, we questioned $134,376 (see\n exhibit B). The funds were questioned because the projects that the\n personnel worked on did not meet SCA objectives of research in the\n food and agricultural sciences. The research was primarily in the\n\n\n3\n SCA No. 58-6615-8-022, Amendment 3, dated February 2, 2000.\n4\n USDA, \xe2\x80\x9c1890 Institution Teaching and Research, Capacity Building Grants Program Annual Summary, FY 1999,\xe2\x80\x9d dated September\n1999.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 8\n\x0c biomedical field. FAMU did not consult with ARS and the designated\n PI as to the eligibility of the projects before commencing work on them.\n\n The majority of the personnel costs charged to research projects were\n for FAMU professors who worked on the projects. The remainder was\n spent on graduate students and research assistants who worked with\n the project leaders. A percentage of the project leaders\' salaries and\n benefits was allowed to be paid from SCA funds in order to release\n them from part of their academic work so they could conduct the\n research.\n\n In July 2001, ARS suspended funding for the SC due to concerns\n regarding the management and direction of SC activities. At that time,\n ARS entered into a new SCA with FAMU that required all research\n projects (including existing ones) be jointly planned and reviewed by a\n Steering Committee that was to be assembled. The projects were to\n be reviewed for compliance with requirements of the agreement and\n their benefits to the food and agricultural sciences. The Steering\n Committee was to consist of ARS and FAMU representatives.\n\n The personnel costs charged for 4 of the 10 projects were questioned\n because the projects did not meet the objective of the SCA that they\n benefit the food and agricultural sciences. Prior to December 2000,\n the SC had dropped one project: \xe2\x80\x9cRelations Between Insulin\n Resistance and Hyperinsulinemia in Rats,\xe2\x80\x9d (project A) that costs\n had been charged to. FAMU had determined it did not meet the\n objectives of the SCA. When the USDA members of the Steering\n Committee reviewed the September 2001 progress report on the nine\n remaining projects, they found that the report did not provide sufficient\n information to determine if they met the objectives of the SCA. The\n Steering Committee decided that all nine project leaders had to submit\n a detailed proposal to the Steering Committee for evaluation before\n continued funding for the projects could be approved. Seven of the\n nine project leaders submitted proposals for their current projects to\n the committee. The eighth project leader submitted a new project\n proposal because he believed his old project, \xe2\x80\x9cA Study of Light-\n Induced Signal Transduction Pathways in Plants and Bacteria\xe2\x80\x9d (project\n B), would not meet SCA objectives. The ninth project leader did not\n submit a proposal because of health problems.\n\n The Steering Committee did not approve two of the eight project\n proposals submitted because they did not meet the SCA objectives.\n The two projects were: \xe2\x80\x9cModeling the Disabling Mechanism of Nisin,\n an Antimicrobial Peptide Used as a Food Additive,\xe2\x80\x9d (project C) and\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe Biochemical and Nutritional Effect of a DM Tea Blend (from\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 9\n\x0c G.Latifolium Leaves) on NIDDM (Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes\n Mellitus)\xe2\x80\x9d (project D).\n\n In addition to the four projects not meeting requirements of the SCA,\n they were not a training ground for graduate assistants interested in\n careers in food and agricultural sciences--an objective of the SCA. We\n interviewed graduate student research assistants whose costs were\n charged to the SC research projects. All the students said they had no\n interest in pursuing careers in the food and agricultural sciences. One\n student was pursuing a Ph.D. in pharmacology and the others were\n pursuing studies in the biomedical field.\n\n Based on the SC staff\'s determination that projects A and B did not\n meet SCA objectives, and the Steering Committee\'s same\n determination for projects C and D, we questioned the\n $134,376 charged to the four projects. The charges included salaries\n and associated employer taxes and benefits of professors and\n graduate and research assistants who worked on the four projects. Of\n the $134,376, FAMU was reimbursed $79,308 and was pending\n reimbursement of another $55,068 due to the July 2001 suspension of\n funding. (See exhibit B.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Personnel Costs Charged to the SCA For Building Teaching\n Capacity That Was Not Obtained\n\n We questioned the $96,993 FAMU charged to the SCA account for\n building teaching capacity. The charges were for professors, adjunct\n instructors, and graduate students to teach 38 undergraduate classes,\n 34 of them were first year courses in basic biology and chemistry.\n None of the courses were in agricultural and food sciences. (See\n exhibit C.) FAMU officials stated that the teaching expenses were\n incurred to build capacity under the terms of the SCA. However, the\n university had no system to measure and track "capacity building" and\n no documented plan for increasing capacity. Our analysis of the\n curricula and classes offered showed FAMU had not expanded its\n teaching capacity.\n\n The term "capacity building" is not clearly defined in the SCA, or in\n ARS or FAMU policy. "Capacity building" generally means to\n strengthen the teaching and research capacity of the institution. The\n SCA states that "capacity building" is necessary for the successful\n implementation of the SC initiative and that it includes acquisition of\n equipment and personnel to train scientists in biology, chemistry, and\n agricultural and food sciences (health, animal sciences, plant sciences,\n agricultural engineering, natural resources, and aquaculture).\n According to ARS staff, the agency intended to allow a\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 10\n\x0c broad definition of "capacity building" so that funds could be used for\n undergraduate courses to increase the university\'s teaching capacity.\n\n In February 2000, FAMU began charging costs to the SCA for the start\n of SC operations. Our review of classes for the 1998 through\n 2001 period showed no increase in the number offered or total\n enrollment in the courses whose costs were charged to the SCA.\n Table 3 shows the number of classes offered by FAMU departments,\n which comprised the SC.\n\n Table 3\n Number of Classes Offered\n Semester/Year 1998 1999 2000 2001\n Fall 185 166 164 149\n Spring 178 170 145 143\n Summer 37 37 37 42\n Total 400 373 346 334\n\n Further analysis showed no increase over prior years in the specific\n basic courses for which the SCA was charged. Table 4 shows the\n number of basic biology and chemistry classes taught, enrollment in\n the courses, and average enrollment per class by school year.\n\n Table 4\n No. of Classes /Enrollment / Average Enrollment\n Basic Biology and Chemistry Classes\n Course Term 1998 1999 2000 2001\n BSC 1005 Lab Spring 13 / 337 / 25.9 13 / 337 / 25.9 11 / 317 / 28.8 11 / 291 / 26.5\n Fall 18 / 350 / 19.4 18 / 380 / 21.1 18 / 379 / 21.1 11 / 291 / 26.5\n BSC 1005 Lecture Spring 5 / 361 / 72.2 5 / 415 / 83.0 5 / 373 / 74.6 5 / 339 / 67.8\n BSC 1010 Lab Fall 18 / 437 / 24.3 18 / 391 / 21.7 18 / 397 / 22.1 17 / 73 / 4.3\n BSC 1010 Lecture Spring 2 / 182 / 91.0 2 / 183 / 91.5 1 / 104 / 104.0 1 / 114 / 114.0\n BSC 1011 Lab Spring 10 / 211 / 21.1 10 / 237 / 23.7 7 / 204 / 29.1 7 / 230 / 32.9\n Fall 3 / 101 / 33.7 3 / 78 / 26.0 3 / 67 / 22.3 3 / 37 / 12.3\n BSC 1011 Lecture Fall 1 / 102 / 102.0 1 / 91 / 91.0 1 / 82 / 82.0 1 / 32 / 32.0\n CHM 1030 Lecture Spring 1 / 37 / 37.0 1 / 24 / 24.0 1 / 26 / 26.0 1 / 45 / 45.0\n CHM 1031 Lab Spring 2 / 48 / 24.0 2 / 32 / 16.0 2 / 53 / 26.5 2 / 39 / 19.5\n CHM 1031 Lecture Spring 1 / 52 / 52.0 1 / 48 / 48.0 1 / 54 / 54.0 1 / 45 / 45.0\n CHM 1045 Lab Spring 12 / 287 / 23.9 12 / 316 / 26.3 18 / 312 / 39.0 18 / 335 / 18.6\n Fall 19 / 339 / 17.8 18 / 312 / 39.0 18 / 315 / 39.4 14 / 30 / 2.1\n CHM 1045 Lecture Spring 5 / 357 / 71.4 5 / 404 / 80.8 5 / 387 / 77.4 5 / 373 / 74.6\n CHM 1046 Lab Spring 11 / 239 / 21.7 11 / 221 / 20.1 11 / 201 / 18.3 11 / 210 / 19.1\n Figures in bold are for terms in which "capacity building" costs were charged to the SCA for:\n BSC 1005 = Biological Science CHM 1030 = Introduction to Chemistry for Non-Science Majors\n BSC 1010 = General Biology I CHM 1031 = Organic Chemistry for Non-Science Majors\n BSC 1011 = General Biology II CHM 1045 = General Chemistry I\n CHM 1046 = General Chemistry II\n\n\n We concluded that the university did not use the $96,993 to increase\n teaching capacity in biology, chemistry, agricultural and food sciences.\n Instead of increasing, the number of classes in these subject areas\n generally declined. (See table 3 and 4.) Therefore, the SCA funds\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 11\n\x0c appear to have offset FAMU\'s normal operating costs in the biology\n and chemistry departments rather than increasing teaching capacity.\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Other Ineligible Employment Costs Charged to the SCA\n\n FAMU charged $59,259 to the SCA for prohibited administrative\n activities and erroneous charges. Details are presented below and in\n exhibit E.\n\n \xe2\x88\x92 $26,636 was charged to the SCA for costs associated with a dean,\n clerical assistant, and undergraduate student assistant even though\n their duties were administrative. The SCA prohibited payment of\n administrative expenses.\n\n \xe2\x88\x92 $19,203 was erroneously charged for 5 graduate assistants, a\n research assistant, and an undergraduate student assistant instead\n of the activities they were employed for as documented in their pay\n records. Their duties were not related to the SC activities.\n\n \xe2\x88\x92 $5,190 was overpaid to 4 graduate students and an adjunct\n instructor based on the lower agreed to pay rates documented in\n their pay records.\n\n \xe2\x88\x92 $5,050 was erroneously paid to 4 graduate students for classes\n they did not teach.\n\n \xe2\x88\x92 $3,180 was charged to the SCA for 2 undergraduate students who\n worked as assistants in laboratory classes. The SCA does not\n provide for assisting undergraduate students.\n\n At the conclusion of our fieldwork, FAMU had been reimbursed\n $56,883 of the questioned $59,259 with the remaining $2,376 pending\n reimbursement.\n\n In summary, at the completion of our fieldwork, FAMU had been\n reimbursed $233,184 for personnel costs associated with ineligible\n research projects, teaching and administrative duties, and erroneous\n charges. Due to the funding suspension, another $57,444 of ineligible\n personnel costs were pending reimbursement.\n\n Recover the $233,184 reimbursed for\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 ineligible personnel expenses and disallow the\n $57,444 pending reimbursement.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 12\n\x0c Require FAMU to develop and implement a\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 formal plan to show how SCA funds spent will\n "build capacity."\n\n ARS Response\n\n In its March 17, 2003, response to the draft report, ARS stated that it had\n requested advice and guidance from OGC and would be providing a\n response to each of the findings and recommendations. (See exhibit F.)\n\n OIG Position\n\n The response did not address specific actions planned to implement the\n recommendations. To accept your management decision, we need details\n and timeframes for implementing the corrective actions.\n\n FAMU did not obtain the prior approval of ARS\n FINDING NO. 3 before purchasing 66 items of equipment\n costing $269,743. The university did not\n FAMU PURCHASED comply with SCA requirements that it obtain\n UNAUTHORIZED EQUIPMENT approval from ARS before purchasing the\n equipment and bypassed the designated PI in\n the decision-making process. As a result,\n 36 of the items costing $131,136 were ineligible because they were used\n for administrative purposes or for research projects not of mutual interest\n to ARS. The remaining 30 items costing $138,607 were for post approved\n research projects. (See exhibit E.) However, FAMU had not justified the\n need for each item of equipment to ARS and obtained its approval for the\n expenditures.\n\n ARS5 requires that cooperators justify the need for nonexpendable\n equipment. The justification should show what will be purchased with\n Federal funds and how it will be used under the agreement. If the need\n for equipment arises after funds are awarded, the authorized department\n officer (ADO) must approve the expenditure before the cooperator\n proceeds with the purchase. ARS6 relies on the ADO approval to maintain\n ongoing oversight of expenditures. This mechanism, when working as\n intended, allows the agency to be an active participant in the agreement\n and gauge research progress and expenditure propriety.\n\n In April 2000, FAMU began purchasing equipment to be used on research\n projects. However, it did not work with either ARS or the designated PI to\n ensure that the projects met the objectives of the SCA (see Finding\n No. 1). Between April 2000 and August 2001, FAMU charged\n5\n ARS Manual 280.0, Extramural Agreements, Chapter 2100, Section 2101.3, "Preparation of the Request Packages", April 1994.\n6\n ARS Manual 280.0, Extramural Agreements, Chapter 1200, Section 1203, "Definitions", and Chapter 2100, "Specific Cooperative\nAgreements", Section 2103.2.2, "Purchase of Nonexpendable Equipment", April 1994.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 13\n\x0c 66 nonexpendable equipment items7 valued at $269,743 to the SCA\n account. FAMU did not request ARS approval to purchase the items or\n consult with the PI regarding the purchases.\n\n Because of concerns about how the SCA was being managed, ARS in\n cooperation with FAMU established a Steering Committee to assist in the\n planning, coordination, and review of the research projects. ARS\n suspended funding on the projects until FAMU submitted justification for\n them and the Committee determined whether they met the objectives of\n the SCA. Justifications were not submitted for two projects because\n FAMU staff believed they would not qualify under the SCA. The\n committee determined that two other projects did not meet SCA objectives\n (see Finding No. 1). FAMU had already purchased equipment for three of\n the four projects.\n\n Our review showed that 36 items purchased for $131,136 were used for\n the 3 ineligible research projects and administrative purposes. The other\n 30 items costing $138,607 were acquired for post approved research\n projects but FAMU had not provided ARS with justifications why each item\n was needed to support the projects (see table 5 and exhibit E).\n\n Table 5\n No. of Reimbursement\n Items Cost Paid Pending\n Ineligible Research Projects 28 $ 121,808 $ 105,184 $ 16,624\n Ineligible Administrative Use 8 $ 9,328 9,328 0\n Subtotal 36 $ 131,136 $ 114,512 $ 16,624\n Eligible Research Project 30 $ 138,607 98,438 40,169\n Total 66 $ 269,743 $ 212,950 $ 56,793\n\n\n At the completion of our fieldwork, FAMU had been reimbursed\n $114,512 for the 36 ineligible items. Due to ARS\' suspension of funding,\n the remaining $16,624 was pending reimbursement. Also, FAMU had not\n provided ARS with post justification to support the $138,607 charged to\n the eligible research projects.\n\n Recover the $114,512 reimbursed for the\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 36 ineligible items and disallow the\n $16,624 pending reimbursement.\n\n\n\n\n7\n Items with a value of $1,000 or more are classified as nonexpendable property and inventoried.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 14\n\x0c Evaluate FAMU\'s post justifications for the\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 7 30 items costing $138,607 and determine if\n they are essential to support the research\n projects. Recover and/or disallow\n reimbursement of the costs for any items that are not essential and\n justified.\n\n Require FAMU to establish procedures that\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 8 ensure written approval from the ADO is\n obtained before purchasing any equipment to\n be reimbursed from SCA funds and not listed\n in the SCA.\n\n ARS Response\n\n In its March 17, 2003, response to the draft report, ARS stated that it had\n requested advice and guidance from OGC and would be providing a\n response to each of the findings and recommendations. (See exhibit F.)\n\n OIG Position\n\n The response did not address specific actions planned to implement the\n recommendations. To accept your management decision, we need details\n and timeframes for implementing the corrective actions.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 15\n\x0c FAMU NEEDS TO DEVELOP AN IMPLEMENTATION\n CHAPTER 2\n PLAN FOR THE SC\n\n Since the SC initiative began in\n FINDING NO. 4 February 2000, FAMU had not worked with\n ARS to develop a strategic plan to address\n how the multiple objectives of the SCA would\n be achieved. Although the first 2 years of operations may be\n characterized as start up, FAMU had allocated no funding to the primary\n objective of the SCA \xe2\x80\x93 development of Ph.D. programs. FAMU had not\n developed a SC implementation plan that contained (1) priorities, goals,\n and timeframes for implementation of each objective; (2) statements of the\n scope of work to meet those goals and timeframes; and (3) a process or\n methodology for measuring accomplishments and reporting progress in\n achieving goals. The SCA did not require written plans for achieving the\n SC objectives. As a result ARS could not determine whether FAMU\xe2\x80\x99s\n level of effort towards accomplishing the SCA objectives was\n commensurate with the SCA funds it received.\n\n The cooperative agreement is a legal instrument8 used to form a\n relationship between USDA and a cooperator. The agreement objectives\n must serve the mutual interests of both parties in agricultural research,\n extension, and teaching activities. The SCA between ARS and the\n cooperator should describe in detail a jointly planned, executed, and\n funded research program, or project9.\n\n The objectives of the SCA10 with FAMU were to establish a SC that would\n produce Ph.D. graduates with degrees in biology and chemistry interested\n in agricultural research careers. Other objectives were to train agricultural\n research career scientists in the areas of health, food science, animal,\n plant, and marine sciences; partner with ARS in providing experiential\n learning opportunities for SC graduate students; and develop and execute\n cooperative research projects of mutual interest with ARS. The initiative\n would be implemented in multiple stages. Implementation would include\n "capacity building" to develop infrastructure (including equipment,\n supplies, and personnel), establishing state of the art biology and\n chemistry research laboratories, and cooperating with ARS in developing\n and performing mutually agreed to research projects.\n\n\n\n\n8\n 7 U.S.C. 3318, \xe2\x80\x9cContract, grant, and cooperative agreement authorities,\xe2\x80\x9d January 2, 2001\n9\n ARS Manual 280.0, Extramural Agreements, Chapter 2100, dated April 1994.\n10\n Amendment 3 to SCA number 58-6615-8-022, dated February 2, 2000.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 16\n\x0c The SCA contained eight objectives for the SC and required FAMU to\n work closely with ARS in developing plans for accomplishing the\n objectives. The university had not worked with ARS in planning work\n to be performed and did not have any written plans for accomplishing\n the SCA\'s multiple objectives. Between February 1, 2000, and\n November 30, 2001, FAMU charged $853,614 to the SC initiative. Of that\n amount, $701,179 (82 percent) related to a single objective \xe2\x80\x93 research\n projects.\n\n At the completion of our fieldwork, FAMU had not started implementing\n the primary objectives of the SCA. For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Development of doctoral degree granting graduate programs in the SC\n disciplines of biology, chemistry, and related agricultural sciences \xe2\x80\x93\n Although this was the primary objective of the SCA, at the completion\n of our fieldwork, FAMU had not acted on it. FAMU did not have a\n formal plan for the development of doctoral degree granting programs\n in the SC disciplines of biology, chemistry, and related agricultural\n sciences or a joint plan with another school with accredited Ph.D.\n programs in those fields. The university must develop the academic\n requirements necessary for obtaining a degree and reasonable\n timeframes for completing the requirements, determine and procure\n the amount of human and physical resources needed to support all the\n requirements, and develop a system of evaluating degree candidates\'\n suitability for award of the degree.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recruitment of graduate students committed to obtaining their doctoral\n degrees in biology, chemistry, and related food agricultural sciences \xe2\x80\x93\n FAMU did not have a formal plan for recruiting graduate students\n committed to obtaining their doctoral degrees in biology, chemistry,\n and related food agricultural sciences or a system to track their\n progress and costs relative to the SCA objectives. In addition, biology\n and chemistry Ph.D. candidates would have to pursue the degree at\n another school because FAMU does not have a doctorial program in\n those disciplines. The SCA did not state how much of the recruiting\n effort should be directed at agricultural sciences and how much to\n biology and chemistry in areas not related to agricultural. In order for\n its recruiting effort to comply with ARS and SCA requirements, the plan\n would need to show a level of commitment to producing career\n agricultural research scientists acceptable to ARS.\n\n Although the years 2000 and 2001 may be characterized as a startup\n phase for the SC, the number and scope of the objectives require\n extensive planning. Proper planning should include (1) prioritizing\n objectives and relating implementation strategies and activities to the\n accomplishment of each objective, (2) developing goals and timeframes\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 17\n\x0c for accomplishments of the objectives, (3) determining in detail the scope\n of the work to be accomplished for each activity, (4) financing for activities\n to be performed, and (5) tracking performance and submitting\n comprehensive progress reports to ARS.\n\n\n Amend the SCA to require that FAMU work\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 9 with ARS to develop a mutually agreeable SC\n implementation plan, updated annually, which\n prioritizes the multiple objectives, strategies,\n and work to be performed. Require that the plan include goals to be\n accomplished for each activity, scopes of work to be performed,\n timeframes for completing the actions planned, and an objective\n methodology for measuring accomplishments. Suspend further\n reimbursements until the implementation plan is developed.\n\n ARS Response\n\n In its March 17, 2003, response to the draft report, ARS stated that it had\n requested advice and guidance from OGC and would be providing a\n response to each of the findings and recommendations. (See exhibit F.)\n\n OIG Position\n\n The response did not address specific actions planned to implement the\n recommendations. To accept your management decision, we need details\n and timeframes for implementing the corrective actions.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 18\n\x0cEXHIBIT A \xe2\x80\x93 SUMMARY OF MONETARY RESULTS\n\nFINDING\nNUMBER DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CATEGORY\n 2 Ineligible research projects,\n teaching, and other cost\n charged to SCA\n Questioned cost - Recovery\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Paid $233,184 recommended\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Pending Reimbursement $57,444 FTBPTBU1 - Savings\n 3 Ineligible equipment cost\n charged to SCA\n Questioned cost - Recovery\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Paid $114,512 recommended\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Pending Reimbursement $16,624 FTBPTBU-Savings\n 3 Equipment purchased without Unsupported cost -\n justification $138,607 Recovery recommended\nTotal Monetary Result $560,371\n1\n Funds to be put to better use.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 19\n\x0c EXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 EMPLOYMENT COSTS FOR INELIGIBLE SCA RESEARCH\n PROJECTS\n\n Project Ineligible Costs\nCod Employee Total\ne Name Code Position Reimbursed Pending Charged\nA Relations between Insulin\n Resistance and\n Hyperinsulinemia in Rats 28 AP $ 3,008.83 $ 3,008.83\n\nB A Study of Light-Induced\n Signal Transduction 10 AP $ 2,846.13 $ 682.73 $ 3,528.86\n Pathways in Plants and\n Bacteria 35 GA 2,344.68 2,344.68\n Project Total $ 5,190.81 $ 682.73 $ 5,873.54\n\nC Modeling the Disabling\n Mechanism of Nisin, an 6 AP $ 3,205.24 $23,765.71 $ 26,970.95\n Antimicrobial Peptide Used\n as a Food Additive 32 GA 15,458.82 1,875.20 17,334.02\n Project Total $ 18,664.06 $25,640.91 $ 44,304.97\n\nD The Biomechanical and 1 AP $ 16,038.04 $23,118.27 $ 39,156.31\n Nutritional Effect of a DM 4 GA 15,156.60 15,156.60\n Tea Blend (from G.\n Latifolium Leaves) on 19 GA 12,139.17 1,875.20 14,014.37\n NIDDM (Non-Insulin 33 GA 16,581.86 1,875.20 18,457.06\n Dependent Diabetes\n Mellitus) 36 GA 12,143.82 1,875.20 14,019.02\n Project Total $ 72,059.49 $28,743.87 $100,803.36\n\nAccounting Adjustments Not Identified $(19,614.77 $(19,614.77)\n )\n\nTotal for Ineligible SCA Research Projects $ 79,308.42 $55,067.51 $134,375.93\nAP = Assistant Professor (Faculty Project Leader)\nGA = Graduate Assistant\n\n\n\n\n USDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 20\n\x0cEXHIBIT C \xe2\x80\x93 QUESTIONED ADJUNCT PROFESSOR/INSTRUCTOR\n AND GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT COSTS\n Page 1 of 2\nEmployee Payroll\n Code Period Taught Position Courses Taught Expense\n Graduate Teaching\n 9 08/08/00 - 09/30/00 BSC 1005, Sec L13 $ 405.60\n Assistant\n 18 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Instructor BSC 1011, Sec L05 3,689.76\n CHM 1030, Sec 001\n 27 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Instructor 5,803.19\n CHM 1031, Sec 001\n 17 Graduate Teaching CHM 1045, Sec L07\n 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 4,001.56\n Assistant CHM 1045, Sec L11\n Graduate Teaching CHM 1045, Sec L05\n 19 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 2,477.64\n Assistant CHM 1045, Sec L08\n 37 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Instructor BSC 2094, Sec L06 4,847.96\n 23 08/08/00 - 09/30/00 Graduate Assistant BCH 4033, Sec L05 1,300.27\n BSC 1005, Sec 001\n 22 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Instructor 3,885.21\n BSC 1005, Sec L11\n 14 CHM 1031, Sec L01\n 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Instructor 5,167.23\n CHM 1031, Sec L02\n 3 Graduate Teaching BSC 1005, Sec L09\n 08/08/00 - 05/07/01 2,177.35\n Assistant BSC 1005, Sec L17\n 30 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Instructor CHM 1045, Sec L03 2,179.38\n 13 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Professor CHM 1045, Sec 002 2,623.38\n CHM 1045, Sec 005\n CHM 1046, Sec L06\n 12 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Instructor 18,054.42\n CHM 1046, Sec L08\n CHM 1046, Sec L12\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 21\n\x0c Page 2 of 2\n\nEmployee Payroll\n Code Period Taught Position Courses Taught Expense\n 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 CHM 1045, Sec L09\n Graduate Teaching Assistant $ 3,474.56\n Spring 2000 CHM 1046, Sec L07\n\n 08/08/00 - 09/30/00 CHM 1045, Sec L14\n Graduate Assistant 6,597.48\n 40 10/01/00 - 05/07/01 CHM 1045, Sec L19\n Fall 2000\n\n 10/01/00 - 05/07/01 CHM 1045, Sec L09\n Graduate Assistant 5,547.61\n Spring 2001 CHM 1046, Sec L07\n CHM 3121, Sec 001\n 20 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Professor 7,548.28\n CHM 3121, Sec L01\n BSC 1010, Sec 001\n 15 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Graduate Teaching Assistant 4,037.94\n BSC 1011, Sec L01\n BSC 1010, Sec L03\n BSC 1010, Sec L14\n 26 08/08/00 - 09/30/00 Assistant Professor 10,602.41\n BSC 1011, Sec 001\n BSC 1011, Sec L02\n CHM 1045, Sec L04\n 34 01/05/00 - 05/01/00 Graduate Teaching Assistant 2,572.16\n CHM 1045, Sec L10\nTotal Ineligible Adjunct Professor/Instructor and Graduate Assistants Cost $96,993.39\n\nBCH 4033: Biochemistry I CHM 1030: Introduction to Chemistry for Nonscience Majors\nBSC 1005: Biological Science CHM 1031: Organic Chemistry for Nonscience Majors\nBSC 1010: General Biology I CHM 1045: General Chemistry I\nBSC 1011: General Biology II CHM 1046: General Chemistry II\nBSC 2094: Anatomy and Physiology II CHM 3121: Advanced Analytical Chemistry\n\nSection numbers that begin with 0 are lecture classes.\nSection numbers that begin with L are laboratory classes.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 22\n\x0c EXHIBIT D \xe2\x80\x93 OTHER INELIGIBLE EMPLOYMENT COSTS CHARGED TO\n THE SCA\n Ineligible Costs\nError Employee Position Reimbursed Pending Total Charged\n Code\nAdministrative Costs 11 CA $19,547.72 $19,547.72\nCharged to the SCA 24 D 4,536.21 4,536.21\n 38 SA 2,552.00 2,552.00\n Total $26,635.93 $26,635.93\n\nEmployee\xe2\x80\x99s Expenses 4 GRA $2,477.64 $2,477.64\nMisclassified by Account 9 GTA 2,346.08 2,346.08\nNumber 23 AR 2,353.24 2,353.24\n 34 GA 4,997.15 4,997.15\n 39 GTA 4,123.52 4,123.52\n 41 GA 1,440.00 1,440.00\n 45 SA $1,465.67 1,465.67\n Total $17,737.63 $1,465.67 $19,203.30\n\nExpenses Charged to the 3 GTA $ 670.76 $ 670.76\nSCA for Work not 5 GTA 2,477.64 2,477.64\nPerformed 16 GA 601.02 601.02\n 23 GA 1,300.25 1,300.25\n Total $5,049.67 $5,049.67\n\nEmployee\xe2\x80\x99s Pay in Excess 3 GTA $1,048.35 $1,048.35\nof Agreed Rate for the 9 GTA 157.00 157.00\nAssignment Charged to the 15 GTA 601.41 601.41\nSCA 22 I 2,472.39 2,472.39\n 42 GA $910.40 910.40\n Total $4,279.15 $ 910.40 $5,189.55\n\nExpenses for 25 SA $1,680.00 $1,680.00\nUndergraduate Students 31 SA 1,500.00 1,500.00\n Total $3,180.00 $3,180.00\n\nTotal Other Ineligible Employment Costs $56,882.38 $2,376.07 $59,258.45\n\nAR = Assistant in Research GA = Graduate Assistant I = Instructor (Adjunct Faculty)\nCA = Clerical Assistant GRA = Graduate Research Assistant SA = Student Assistant\nD = Dean GTA = Graduate Teaching Assistant\n\n\n\n\n USDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 23\n\x0cEXHIBIT E \xe2\x80\x93 QUESTIONED NON-EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT\n PURCHASES\n Page 1 of 4\n\n Cost\n Primary use of equipment Description Reimbursed Pending Total\nIneligible A Study of Light-Induced Signal Incubator, Fisher $ 1,596 $ 1,596\nResearch Transduction Pathways in Plants and Incubator, Fisher 1,596 1,596\nProject Bacteria Incubator/Shaker 5,650 5,650\n Fraction Collector 1,825 1,825\n Gradient Monitor 1,177 1,177\n Chart Recorder 2,265 2,265\n UV Monitor 2,038 2,038\n Unit Gene Pulser 2,900 2,900\n Pump Rack 3,195 3,195\n Gradient Pump $ 3,471 3,471\n Fraction Collector 1,955 1,955\n Fraction Collector 1,955 1,955\n Project Total $ 22,242 $ 7,381 $ 29,623\n\n Modeling the Disabling Mechanism\n of Nisin, an Antimicrobial Peptide Computer, 230 S/G $ 3,262 3,262\n Used as a Food Additive Computer, Octane S/G\n 25,108 25,108\n Project Total $ 28,370 $ 28,370\n\n The Biochemical and Nutritional Micro centrifuge $ 6,733 $ 6,733\n Effect of a DM Tea Blend (from Fraction Collector 1,373 1,373\n G.Latifolium Leaves) on NIDDM Sonic Dismembrator 1,406 1,406\n (Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Circulator, Digtl 2,381 2,381\n Mellitus) Freezer/Refrigerator 1,820 1,820\n Evaporator, Rotary 2,933 2,933\n Ultra Low Freezer 8,956 8,956\n Vacuum Pump 1,875 1,875\n Chromatography\n Refrigerator 5,170 5,170\n Power Gen. 1800D $ 6,275 6,275\n Sonic Dismembrator 1,790 1,790\n Freeze Dry Vacuum\n Pump 1,905 1,905\n Saw tooth Generator 1,178 1,178\n Spectrophotometer 20,020 20,020\n Project Total $ 54,572 $ 9,243 $ 63,815\n\nTotal Ineligible Projects $105,184 $16,624 $121,808\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 24\n\x0c Page 2 of 4\n\n Cost\n Primary use of equipment Description Reimbursed Pending Total\nIneligible General use by the entire Chemistry\nAdministrative Department Copier $ 1,299 $ 1,299\nUse Chemistry Department faculty\n member not involved in SC Computer, Gateway- 1,147 1,147\n research. GP71\n Chemistry Department faculty\n member not involved in SC Computer, Gateway- 1,147 1,147\n research. GP71\n Chemistry Department faculty\n member not involved in SC Computer, Gateway- 1,147 1,147\n research. GP71\n Chemistry Department faculty\n member not involved in SC Computer, Gateway- 1,147 1,147\n research. GP71\n Chemistry Department secretary Computer, Gateway- 1,147 1,147\n GP71\n Chemistry Department secretary Computer, Gateway- 1,147 1,147\n GP71\n Chemistry Department Chair Computer, Gateway 1,147 1,147\n 733SE\nTotal Ineligible Administrative $ 9,328 $ 9,328\n\nTotal Ineligible Equipment Expenditures $114,512 $16,624 $131,136\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 25\n\x0c Page 3 of 4\n\n Cost\n Primary use of equipment Description Reimbursed Pending Total\nEligible Detection and Identification of Incubator CO2 $ 5,135 $ 5,135\nResearch E.Coli 0157:h7 in Goat Herds Top-loading Balance 1,150 1,150\nProject - Freezer 5,942 5,942\nProperty Not Centrifuge, MR231 8,781 8,781\nApproved for Micro centrifuge 1,895 1,895\nPurchase\n Eppendorf, Thermal Cycler 3,350 3,350\n Strata linker 1,512 1,512\n Hybridization Oven 1,850 1,850\n Vacuum Blotter 1,783 1,783\n Freezer/Refrigerator 1,295 1,295\n Project Total $32,693 $32,693\n\n Spectroscopic and Biochemical Econ Pump $ 1,800 $ 1,800\n Studies of Plant Signal Computer, Gateway 733SE 1,147 1,147\n Transduction Mechanisms Computer, Gateway 733SE 1,147 1,147\n Project Total $ 4,094 $ 4,094\n\n Laser Remote Sensing of Dual Power EPM Meter $ 1,924 $ 1,924\n Pesticides and Metallic Spectrometer, Fiber Optic 3,844 3,844\n Contaminants Computer, Gateway\n M9333U/G 2,659 2,659\n Labview Systems for\n Windows 1,577 1,577\n Spectrometer, Pro-3001 16,863 16,863\n Computer, Laptop Apple $ 3,570 3,570\n SYS., Detector 24,396 24,396\n Project Total $26,867 $27,966 $54,833\n\n Agricultural Applications of Top-loading Balance $ 1,638 $ 1,638\n Carbon Nanotubes Buchl Evap Plast 2,696 2,696\n Circulator 1,500 1,500\n Glovebox 13,073 13,073\n Computer, Gateway-GP71 1,147 1,147\n Assem Magnet Bore $12,203 12,203\n Project Total $20,054 $12,203 $32,257\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 26\n\x0c Page 4 of 4\n\n Cost\n Primary use of equipment Description Reimbursed Pending Total\nEligible Territorial Competition Among\nResearch Foraging Workers of an Enclosed 200m Microscope $ 1,150 $ 1,150\nProject - Laboratory Community of\nProperty Not Colonies of the Red Imported Plant Growth Chamber 8,999 8,999\nApproved for Fire Ant\nPurchase Project Total $ 10, 149 $ 10,149\n\n Solution Structure of the Pepsin\n Inhibitor PI-3 Software-Mathematica $ 2,011 $ 2,011\n for SGI\n Project Total $ 2,011 $ 2,011\n\n Shared Use by All Projects as\n Necessary Ice Machine $ 2,570 $ 2,570\n\nTotal Property Not Approved for Purchase $ 98,438 $40,169 $138,607\n\nTotal Questioned Property Purchased for SCA $212,950 $56,793 $269,743\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 27\n\x0cEXHIBIT F \xe2\x80\x93 ARS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/02007-1-At Page 28\n\x0cInformational copies of this report have been distributed to:\n\nAgency Liaison Officer, ARS (6)\nGeneral Accounting Office (1)\nOffice of the Chief Financial Officer (1)\nFarm and Foreign Agricultural Division (6)\n\x0c'


text:
Eelinformatsioon 9. – 15. juunini - Riigikogu
 Eelinformatsioon 9. – 15. juunini
 06.06.2008 / Eelinfo
 Riigikogu III istungjärgu 17. töönädal 9. – 12. juunini
 Kell 15 algaval istungil vastab peaminister Andrus Ansip Riigikogu liikmete arupärimistele, mis käsitlevad Euroopa Liidu tõukefondide vahendite kasutamist (nr 58), olukorda Narvas (nr 67), eurotoetuste kasutamist ja kaasfinantseerimise tagamist (nr 68), koolide ühendamist Järvamaa Kutsehariduskeskuseks (nr 70), kodanike põhiseaduslike õiguste tagamist (nr 71) ning lasteaiakohtade probleemi lahendamist (nr 74).
 Euroopa Liidu asjade komisjonis – kell 13.30 seisukoha andmine Euroopa Nõukogu määruse ja otsuse eelnõudele, mis käsitlevad migreerumist Schengeni infosüsteemist (SIS 1+) teise põlvkonna Schengeni infosüsteemi (SIS II); vahearuanne EL asjade komisjoni tellitud EL Ministrite nõukogu töörühmade esindatuse uuringust, kutsutud Eesti Diplomaatide Kooli direktor Ekke Nõmm; Eesti seisukohad 12. – 13. juunini toimuval transpordi, telekommunikatsiooni ja energeetika (transpordi ja telekommunikatsiooni osa) nõukogu kohtumisel, kutsutud majandus- ja kommunikatsiooniminister Juhan Parts; seisukoha andmine Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivi eelnõule, millega hõlbustatakse karistuste piiriülest täitmist liiklusohutuse valdkonnas;
 keskkonnakomisjonis – Aafrika ja Euraasia rändveelindude kaitse kokkuleppega ühinemise seaduse eelnõu (258 SE), 1992. aasta rahvusvahelise konventsiooni rahvusvahelise naftareostuskahjude hüvitamise fondi loomisest 2003. aasta protokolliga ühinemise seaduse eelnõu (247 SE), keskkonnatasude seaduse §-de 16 ja 19 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (264 SE), looduskaitseseaduse ja sellest tulenevalt teiste seaduste muutmise seaduse eelnõu (212 SE);
 kultuurikomisjonis – Elektroonilise side seaduse § 90 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (261 SE), ülikooliseaduse, erakooliseaduse ja rakenduskõrgkooli seaduse ning nendega seonduvate seaduste muutmise seaduse eelnõu (272 SE);
 maaelukomisjonis – ühise põllumajanduspoliitika “tervisekontroll”, kutsutud põllumajandusministeeriumi põllumajandus- ja kaubanduspoliitika asekantsler Andres Oopkaup;
 majanduskomisjonis – liikluskindlustus seaduse § 3 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (255 SE), riigivara tasuta võõrandamise küsimused;
 põhiseaduskomisjonis – Riigikogu valimise seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (248 SE), ELAK-ile arvamuse andmine nõukogu määruse ja otsuse eelnõude kohta, mis käsitlevad migreerumist Schengeni infosüsteemist (SIS 1+) teise põlvkonna Schengeni infosüsteemi (SIS II), Riigikohtule arvamuse andmine riikliku pensionikindlustuse seaduse (RPKS) § 28 lg 2 punkti 3 vastavuse kohta põhiseadusega osas, milles see kehtestab piirangu kohustusliku sõjaväe teenistuse aja pensioniõigusliku staaži hulka arvamiseks, sätestades tingimuse „kui isik suunati teenistusse Eestist”;
 rahanduskomisjonis – riigi 2008.aasta lisaeelarve eelnõu ( 273 SE), Eesti Panga 2007. aasta aruanne, osaleb Eesti Panga president Andres Lipstok, Finantsinspektsiooni 2007. aasta aruanne, osaleb Finantsinspektsiooni juhatuse esimees Raul Malmstein;
 sotsiaalkomisjonis – ravikindlustuse seaduse ja Eesti Haigekassa seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (246 SE) ja (196 SE), Eesti Vabariigi valitsuse ja Läti Vabariigi valitsuse vahelise endise NSV Liidu territooriumil täitunud kindlustusperioodide arvessevõtmise lepingu ratifitseerimise seaduse eelnõu (230 SE), tööturuteenuste ja -toetuste seaduse ja sotsiaalhoolekande seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (285 SE), ravikindlustuse seaduse § 63 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (249 SE);
 väliskomisjonis – kohtumine Rootsi Euroopa Liidu asjade ministri Cecilia Malmström’iga, arutusel on Rootsi eesistumine Euroopa Liidus 2009. aasta teisel poolaastal, kohtumine Rahvusvaheliste Kaitseuuringute Keskuse töötajatega;
 õiguskomisjonis – politseiseaduse ja sellega seonduvate seaduste muutmise seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (222 SE), karistusseadustiku muutmise seaduse eelnõu (225 SE);
 riigieelarve kontrolli komisjonis – kell 13 ülevaade auditiaruandest „Väärtuslike metsa-elupaikade kaitse Natura 2000 võrgustiku aladel”;
 Kell 14.30 – Riigikogu esimees Ene Ergma avab Riigikogu hoone II korrusel Aksel Sildose fotonäituse “Küüditatuna Siberis”. 1925. a sündinud noormees küüditati 14. juunil 1941. a koos ema Adele ja õe Vaikega Siberisse ning oli sundasumisel Tomski oblasti põhjaosas, Vasjugani rajoonis. See on ajaloost tuntud sundasumise piirkond, Narõmimaa. Noormehe hobiks oli fotograafia ning temast on maha jäänud tuhandeid fotosid. Näituse on koostanud Riigikogu liige ja Tartu Ülikooli arhiivinduse professor Aadu Must, kujundanud Tiiu Laur Rahvusraamatukogust.
 Kell 10 algaval istungil on kavas arutada 16 päevakorrapunkti. Riigikohtu esimees Märt Rask teeb ülevaate kohtukorralduse, õigusemõistmise ja seaduse ühetaolise kohaldamise kohta.
 Teisele lugemisele tulevad otsuse eelnõu “Eesti kaitseväe kasutamine Eesti riigi rahvusvaheliste kohustuste täitmisel NATO reageerimisjõudude koosseisus” (254 OE), kriminaalmenetluse seadustiku ja väärteomenetluse seadustiku muutmise seaduse eelnõu (218 SE), surma põhjuse tuvastamise seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (242 SE) ning kaitseväeteenistuse seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (244 SE).
 Esimesele lugemisele on kavandatud otsuse eelnõu “Abinõud geneetiliselt muundatud organismide kontrollimatust levikust tulenevate ohtude vältimiseks” (256 OE), otsuse eelnõu “Eesti turvalisuspoliitika põhisuunad aastani 2015 heakskiitmine” (263 OE), väärtpaberituru seaduse § 2651 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (282 SE), audiitortegevuse seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (283 SE), keskkonnamõju hindamise ja keskkonnajuhtimissüsteemi seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (280 SE), Riigikogu kodu- ja töökorra seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (235 SE), Riigikogu kodu- ja töökorra seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (236 SE), okupatsioonirežiimide poolt represseeritud isiku seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (237 SE), riikliku pensionikindlustuse seaduse, riiklike peretoetuste seaduse, puuetega inimeste sotsiaaltoetuste seaduse ja käibemaksuseaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (221 SE), võrdse kohtlemise seaduse eelnõu (262 SE) ning puuetega inimeste sotsiaaltoetuste seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (234 SE).
 keskkonnakomisjonis – kell 13.15 Riigikontrolli aruanne „Väärtuslike metsa-elupaikade kaitse Natura 2000 võrgustiku aladel”;
 kultuurikomisjonis – kell 14 õppetoetuste ja õppelaenu seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (223 SE), noorsootöö seaduse ja huvikooli seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (232 SE), ülikooliseaduse, erakooliseaduse ja rakenduskõrgkooli seaduse ning nendega seonduvate seaduste muutmise seaduse eelnõu (272 SE);
 maaelukomisjonis – maaelu ja põllumajandusturu korraldamise seaduse eelnõu (275 SE);
 majanduskomisjonis – kell 13 kohtumine AS Eesti Energia esindajatega, arutusel on Eesti Energia arendusprojektid, sh Jordaania projekt;
 põhiseaduskomisjonis – kell 14 julgeolekuasutuste seaduse § 36 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (231 SE), Riigikohtule arvamuse andmine riigihangete seaduse § 129 lg 2 osas, milles see ei võimalda vaidlustajal kohtusse kaebust esitada, kui vaidlustaja õigusabi kulude väljamõistmise taotlus on vaidluskomisjoni otsusega jäetud rahuldamata;
 riigikaitsekomisjonis – kell 14 surma põhjuse tuvastamise seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (242 SE), kaitseväeteenistuse seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (244 SE);
 sotsiaalkomisjonis – kell 14 ravikindlustuse seaduse ja Eesti Haigekassa seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (246 SE) ja (196 SE), kohtumine USA saatkonna poliitika ja majanduspoliitika osakonna juhataja Jessi Adkinsiga HIV/AIDS ennetustegevuse teemadel;
 väliskomisjonis – kell 14 kandidaat Eesti Vabariigi erakorralise ja täievolilise suursaadiku ametikohale Belgia Kuningriigis ja Luksemburgi Suurhertsogiriigis, kutsutud välisministeeriumi kantsler Matti Maasikas ja suursaadikukandidaat, ülevaade 27. – 29. juunini Hantõ-Mansiiskis toimuvast soome-ugri rahvaste V maailmakongressist, kutsutud Riigikogu soome-ugri toetusrühma aseesimees Mart Nutt ning Tartu Ülikooli dotsent ja soome-ugri rahvaste konsultatiivkomitee liige Tõnu Seilenthal, ülevaade 21. mail toimunud Gruusia üldvalimistest, kutsutud ENPA Eesti delegatsiooni juht Andres Herkel ja OSCE PA Eesti delegatsiooni liige Mart Nutt;
 õiguskomisjonis – kell 14 advokatuuriseaduse ja sellega seonduvate seaduste muutmise seaduse eelnõu (253 SE), Austria Vabariigi, Belgia Kuningriigi, Hispaania Kuningriigi, Luksemburgi Suurhertsogiriigi, Madalmaade Kuningriigi, Prantsuse Vabariigi ja Saksamaa Liitvabariigi vahelise eelkõige terrorismi-, piiriülese kuritegevuse ja ebaseadusliku rände vastases võitluses piiriülese koostöö tõhustamise lepinguga ühinemise seaduse eelnõu (233 SE);
 Kell 13 algavas infotunnis vastavad Riigikogu liikmete küsimustele peaminister Andrus Ansip, rahandusminister Ivari Padar ja kultuuriminister Laine Jänes.
 Kell 14 algavale istungile on planeeritud valitsuse algatatud 15 päevakorrapunkti arutelu.
 Kolmandale lugemisele tulevad kriminaalmenetluse seadustiku ja väärteomenetluse seadustiku muutmise seaduse eelnõu (218 SE), politseiseaduse ja sellega seonduvate seaduste muutmise seaduse eelnõu (222 SE) ning maapõueseaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (228 SE).
 Teisel lugemisel on 9 eelnõu: Lissaboni lepingu, millega muudetakse Euroopa Liidu lepingut ja Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut, ratifitseerimise seaduse eelnõu (193 SE), rahvusvahelise raudteeveo konventsiooniga ühinemise seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (176 SE), ringhäälinguseaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (241 SE), riigi 2008. aasta lisaeelarve seaduse eelnõu (273 SE), välisriigi kutsekvalifikatsiooni tunnustamise seaduse eelnõu (259 SE), väärteomenetluse seadustiku, kohtute seaduse, kriminaalmenetluse seadustiku ja tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustiku muutmise seaduse eelnõu (260 SE), ravikindlustuse seaduse ja Eesti Haigekassa seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (246 SE) ja (196 SE), looduskaitseseaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (212 SE) ning lennundusseaduse ja riigilõivuseaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (245 SE).
 Esimesele lugemisele tuleb 3 eelnõu: geneetiliselt muundatud mikroorganismide suletud keskkonnas kasutamise seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (268 SE), Vabariigi Presidendi ametihüve seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (276 SE) ning meresõiduohutuse seaduse ja riigilõivuseaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (274 SE).
 Kell 12 – Riigikogu aseesimees Kristiina Ojuland avab Toompea lossi kunstisaalis Valgevene kunstnike rändnäituse „Kunst diktatuuri vastu“. Näitus on mõeldud tutvustamaks alternatiivset Valgevenet, maad sügavate ajalooliste traditsioonide ja euroopaliku kultuuriga, loomeeliidiga, kes pole valmis nõustuma praeguse asjade seisuga riigis. Seda Valgevenet, mis on alati olnud osa Euroopa kultuuriruumist. Näitusel osalevad Ales Šaternik, Ales Maraškin, Juri Platonov, Janka Romanovitš, Julia Šaternik loomerühmast “Погоня”, mis on tuntud oma pühendumuse poolest demokraatia ja Valgevene rahvusliku taassünni ideedele, mistõttu teda väga ei armasta Valgevene võimud. Näituse korraldaja on Eesti ühiskondlik organisatsioon “Valgevene uus tee” partnerluses ühendusega «Третий Путь» ja Valgevene Muuseumiga New-Yorgis, Riigikogu ja Avatud Eesti Fondi toel.
 Kell 10 algaval istungil on kolmandale lugemisele kavandatud 4 eelnõu: väärteomenetluse seadustiku, kohtute seaduse, kriminaalmenetluse seadustiku ja tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustiku muutmise seaduse eelnõu (260 SE), välisriigi kutsekvalifikatsiooni tunnustamise seaduse eelnõu (259 SE), ringhäälinguseaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (241 SE) ning lennundusseaduse ja riigilõivuseaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (245 SE).
 Teisel lugemisel on elektroonilise side seaduse § 90 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (261 SE) ja karistusseadustiku muutmise seaduse eelnõu (225 SE).
 rahanduskomisjonis – kell 14 väärtpaberituru seaduse §265 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (282 SE), audiitortegevuse seaduse muutmise seaduse eelnõu (283 SE), tulumaksuseaduse §4 muutmise seaduse eelnõu (250 SE);
 Kell 10 – Euroopa Liidu asjade komisjoni (ELAK) ja väliskomisjoni ühisistung – Eesti seisukohad 16. – 17. juunini 2008 toimuval Euroopa Liidu üldasjade ja välissuhete nõukogu istungil, kutsutud välisminister Urmas Paet.
 Ühisistungile järgneb ELAKi istung, kus on arutusel Eesti majanduskasvu ja tööhõive kava 2008–2011 eelnõu Lissaboni strateegia elluviimiseks, kutsutud Riigikantselei strateegiadirektor Keit Kasemets.
 Riigikogu NATO Parlamentaarse Assamblee Eesti delegatsiooni liige Sven Mikser osaleb Soome Helsingis NATO PA kaitse- ja julgeolekukomitee transatlantilise kaitse ja julgeolekualase koostöö alakomitee visiidil. Toimuvad kohtumised Soome välisministeeriumis ja kaitseministeeriumis.
 11. – 15. juunini
 Riigikogu väliskomisjoni liige Silver Meikar osaleb Suurbritannias Bristolis Euroopa regionaalse Informatsiooni Assotsiatsiooni aastakonverentsil (eris@ Annual Conference). Konverentsil käsitletakse informatsiooni- ja kommunikatsioonitehnoloogiate (ITC) prioriteete Prantsusmaa EL eesistumise ajal, e-kaasamise ja e-kuritegevusega seonduvat. Meikar esineb ettekandega „Rünnak Eesti vastu – äritegevuse ja valitsuse kaitse tulevikus“.
 Balti Assamblee Eesti delegatsiooni juht Trivimi Velliste osaleb Luksemburgis Beneluxi parlamentide konsultatiivnõukogu suveistungil ja Balti Assamblee presiidiumi kohtumisel Beneluxi parlamentide konsultatiivnõukogu presiidiumiga.


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31987D0215
 BESCHLUSS DER KOMMISSION vom 23. Maerz 1987 ueber die Annahme einer Preisverpflichtung im Rahmen des Antidumping-Verfahrens betreffend die Einfuhren von standardisierten Mehrphasen-Wechselstrommotoren mit einer Leistung von 0,7 bis 75 kW mit Ursprung in Rumaenien (87/215/EWG)
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 083 vom 27/03/1987 S. 0053 - 0054
 ***** BESCHLUSS DER KOMMISSION vom 23. März 1987 über die Annahme einer Preisverpflichtung im Rahmen des Antidumping-verfahrens betreffend die Einfuhren von standardisierten Mehrphasen-Wechselstrommotoren mit einer Leistung von 0,7 bis 75 kW mit Ursprung in Rumänien (87/215/EWG) DIE KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN - gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft, gestützt auf die Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2176/84 des Rates vom 23. Juli 1984 über den Schutz gegen gedumpte oder subventionierte Einfuhren aus nicht zur Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft gehörenden Ländern (1), insbesondere auf Artikel 11 und 14, nach Konsultationen in dem durch die vorgenannte Verordnung eingesetzten Beratenden Ausschuß, in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe: A. Vorläufige Maßnahmen (1) Die Kommission hat mit Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3019/86 (2) im Rahmen des am 26. November 1985 eingeleiteten Überprüfungsverfahrens (3) einen vorläufigen Antidumpingzoll auf die Einfuhren von standardisierten Mehrphasen-Wechselstrommotoren mit einer Leistung von 0,75 bis 75 kW mit Ursprung in Rumänien eingeführt. Der vorläufige Zoll wurde mit Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 254/87 des Rates (4) für einen Zeitraum von zwei Monaten verlängert. B. Weiteres Verfahren (2) Während des Verfahrens, das auf die Einführung des vorläufigen Zolls folgte, behauptete der rumänische Ausführer, daß sein Marktanteil 1985 unter das Mindestniveau gefallen war, und beantragte folglich, daß das Verfahren ihm gegenüber ohne endgültige Maßnahme eingestellt wird. Gleichzeitig bot der Ausführer eine Verpflichtung hinsichtlich der Höhe des Mindestpreises seiner Ausfuhren von standardisierten Mehrphasenmotoren nach der Gemeinschaft an. (3) Die Einfuhren aus Rumänien sind zwar von 29 500 Motoren im Jahr 1982 auf 13 900 Motoren 1985 zurückgegangen, aber in den ersten neun Monaten von 1986 wieder auf 39 000 Motoren angestiegen. Werden keine endgültigen Maßnahmen getroffen, besteht daher die Gefahr, daß der Marktanteil der Einfuhren aus dem betreffenden Land die Mindestschwelle wieder überschreiten wird. Auf der Grundlage der endgültigen Schlußfolgerungen des Rates hinsichtlich des Dumping, der Schädigung, der Kausalität und des Interesses der Gemeinschaft in der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 864/87 (5) stellt die Kommission fest, daß die betreffenden Einfuhren die bereits bedeutende Schädigung der Gemeinschaftshersteller von standardisierten Mehrphasenmotoren zu verschärfen drohen. (4) Unter diesen Umständen würde die Einstellung des Überprüfungsverfahrens ohne endgültige Maßnahmen gegenüber dem betroffenen Ausführer eine Diskriminierung der übrigen betroffenen Ausführer darstellen. C. Verpflichtung (5) Die von dem rumänischen Ausführer angebotene Preisverpflichtung dürfte ausreichen, um die Gefahr einer Schädigung zu beseitigen, die den Gemeinschaftsherstellern von standardisierten Mehrphasenmotoren durch die betreffenden Einfuhren droht. Die Preisverpflichtung wurde daher von der Kommission als annehmbar angesehen - BESCHLIESST: Einziger Artikel Die Preisverpflichtung, welche die Ausfuhrgesellschaft Electro-Export-Import (Rumänien) im Rahmen des Antidumpingverfahrens betreffend die Einfuhren von standardisierten Mehrphasen-Wechselstrommotoren mit einer Leistung von 0,75 bis 75 kW der Tarifstelle ex 85.01 B I b) des Gemeinsamen Zolltarifs, entsprechend Nimexe-Kennziffern ex 85.01-33, ex 85.01-34 und ex 85.01-36, mit Ursprung in Rumänien, angeboten hat, wird angenommen. Brüssel, den 23. März 1987 Für die Kommission Willy DE CLERCQ Mitglied der Kommission (1) ABl. Nr. L 201 vom 30. 7. 1984, S. 1. (2) ABl. Nr. L 280 vom 1. 10. 1986, S. 68. (3) ABl. Nr. C 305 vom 26. 11. 1985, S. 2. (4) ABl. Nr. L 26 vom 29. 1. 1987, S. 1. (5) Siehe Seite 1 dieses Amtsblatts.


type: caselaw

text:
 24.4.2017
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 129/30
 Tožba, vložena 6. marca 2017 – Kibelisa/Svet
 (Zadeva T-139/17)
 (2017/C 129/45)
 Jezik postopka: francoščina
 Stranki
 Tožeča stranka: Roger Kibelisa (Kinšasa, Demokratična republika Kongo) (zastopnik: O. Okito, odvetnik)
 Tožena stranka: Svet Evropske unije
 Predloga
 Tožeča stranka Splošnemu sodišču predlaga, naj:
 —
 Uredbo (EU) 2016/2230 o izvajanju Sklepa (SZVP) 2016/2231 z dne 12. decembra 2016 o uvedbi določenih posebnih omejevalnih ukrepov za osebe, ki kršijo embargo na orožje glede Demokratične republike Kongo, in spremembi Sklepa 2010/788/SZVP razglasi za nično v delu, v katerem se nanaša na Rogerja Kibeliso;
 —
 Svetu naloži plačilo lastnih stroškov in stroškov, ki so jih priglasile tožeča stranka ter vse druge intervenientke.
 Tožbeni razlogi in bistvene trditve
 Tožeča stranka v utemeljitev tožbe navaja dva tožbena razloga.
 1.
 Prvi tožbeni razlog: bistvena kršitev postopka, ki naj bi jo Svet storil zlasti s kršitvijo pravice tožeče stranke do obrambe, kršitvijo obveznosti obrazložitve, ki jo ima Svet, in s kršitvijo pravico tožeče stranke do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
 2.
 Drugi tožbeni razlog: kršitev splošnih načel prava Unije, ker naj bi Svet kršil lastninsko pravico tožeče stranke.