text:
 29.10.2014
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 308/61
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) Nr. 1147/2014 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 23 oktober 2014
 tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 2368/2002 van de Raad tot uitvoering van de Kimberleyprocescertificering voor de internationale handel in ruwe diamant
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EG) nr. 2368/2002 van de Raad van 20 december 2002 tot uitvoering van de Kimberleyprocescertificering voor de internationale handel in ruwe diamant (1), en met name artikel 20,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Bijlage II bij Verordening (EG) nr. 2368/2002 bevat de lijst met deelnemers aan de Kimberleyprocescertificering en hun naar behoren aangewezen bevoegde autoriteiten.
 (2)
 Op 8 oktober 2014 publiceerde de voorzitter van het Kimberleyproces een nota over punt 13 van Resolutie 2153(2014) van de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties, waarbij de maatregelen ter voorkoming van invoer van ruwe diamant uit Ivoorkust worden beëindigd. De voorzitter van het Kimberleyproces verzocht alle deelnemers maatregelen te treffen teneinde de diamanthandel met Ivoorkust te hervatten. De lijst van deelnemers van bijlage II moet daarom worden herzien.
 (3)
 Voorts dient het adres van het aanspreekpunt van Cambodja in bijlage II te worden aangepast.
 (4)
 Bijlage II bij Verordening (EG) nr. 2368/2002 moet bijgevolg dienovereenkomstig worden gewijzigd.
 (5)
 Om de doeltreffendheid van de in deze verordening vastgestelde maatregelen te garanderen dient deze verordening onmiddellijk in werking te treden,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 Bijlage II bij Verordening (EG) nr. 2368/2002 wordt vervangen door de tekst in de bijlage bij deze verordening.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de dag van bekendmaking in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 23 oktober 2014
 Voor de Commissie,
 namens de voorzitter,
 Catherine ASHTON
 Vicevoorzitter
 (1) PB L 358 van 31.12.2002, blz. 28.
 BIJLAGE
 „BIJLAGE II
 Lijst van deelnemers aan de Kimberleyprocescertificering en hun naar behoren aangewezen bevoegde autoriteiten, zoals bedoeld in de artikelen 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19 en 20
 ANGOLA
 Ministry of Geology and Mines
 Rua Hochi Min
 C.P # 1260
 Luanda
 Angola
 ARMENIË
 Department of Gemstones and Jewellery
 Ministry of Trade and Economic Development
 M. Mkrtchyan 5
 Yerevan
 Armenië
 AUSTRALIË
 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
 Trade Development Division
 R.G. Casey Building
 John McEwen Crescent
 Barton ACT 0221
 Australië
 BANGLADESH
 Export Promotion Bureau
 TCB Bhaban
 1, Karwan Bazaar
 Dhaka
 Bangladesh
 WIT-RUSLAND
 Ministry of Finance
 Department for Precious Metals and Precious Stones
 Sovetskaja Str., 7
 220010 Minsk
 Wit-Rusland
 BOTSWANA
 Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources
 PI Bag 0018
 Gaborone
 Bolivia
 BRAZILIË
 Ministry of Mines and Energy
 Esplanada dos Ministérios — Bloco „U” — 4o andar
 70065 — 900 Brasilia — DF
 Brazilië
 CAMBODJA
 Ministry of Commerce
 Export-Import Department
 #19-61, MOC Road (1138 Road)
 Phum Teuk Thla, Sangkai Teuk Thla, Khan Sen Sok,
 Phnom Penh
 Cambodja
 KAMEROEN
 National Permanent Secretariat for the Kimberley Process
 Ministry of Mines, Industry and Technological Development
 Intek Building
 Navik Street
 P.O. Box 8390
 Yaoundé
 Kameroen
 CANADA
 Internationaal:
 Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
 Human Rights, Governance and Indigenous Affairs Policy Division — MIH
 125 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2
 Canada
 Algemene inlichtingen:
 Kimberley Process Office
 Minerals and Metals Sector (MMS)
 Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
 580 Booth Street, 10th floor
 Ottawa, Ontario
 Canada K1A 0E4
 Volksrepubliek CHINA
 Department of Inspection and Quarantine Clearance
 General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ)
 9 Madiandonglu
 Haidian District, Beijing 100088
 Volksrepubliek China
 IVOORKUST
 Ministère de l'Industrie et des Mines
 Secrétariat Permanent de la Représentation en Côte d'Ivoire du Processus de Kimberley (SPRPK-CI)
 Abidjan-Plateau, Immeuble les Harmonies II
 Abidjan
 Ivoorkust
 HONG KONG (Speciale Administratieve Regio van de Volksrepubliek China)
 Department of Trade and Industry
 Hongkong Special Administrative Region
 Peoples Republic of China
 Room 703, Trade and Industry Tower
 700 Nathan Road
 Kowloon
 Hongkong
 China
 CONGO (Democratische Republiek)
 Centre d'Expertise, d'Evaluation et de Certification des Substances Minérales Précieuses et Semi-précieuses (CEEC)
 3989, av des cliniques,
 Kinshasa/Gombe
 Democratische Republiek Congo
 CONGO (Republiek)
 Bureau d'Expertise, d'Evaluation et de Certification des Substances Minérales Précieuses (BEEC)
 BP 2787
 Brazzaville
 Republiek Congo
 EUROPESE UNIE
 Europese Commissie
 Dienst Instrumenten voor het buitenlands beleid
 Kantoor EEAS 02/309
 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
 België
 GHANA
 Precious Minerals Marketing Company (Ltd)
 Diamond House,
 Kinbu Road,
 P.O. Box M. 108
 Accra
 Ghana
 GUINEE
 Ministry of Mines and Geology
 BP 2696
 Conakry
 Guinée
 GUYANA
 Geology and Mines Commission
 P O Box 1028
 Upper Brickdam
 Stabroek
 Georgetown
 Guyana
 INDIA
 Department of Commerce
 Ministry of Commerce & Industry
 Udyog Bhawan
 Maulana Azad Road
 New Delhi 110 011
 India
 INDONESIË
 Directorate-General of Foreign Trade
 Ministry of Trade
 JI M.I. Ridwan Rais No. 5
 Blok I Iantai 4
 Jakarta Pusat Kotak Pos. 10110
 Jakarta
 Indonesië
 ISRAËL
 Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor
 Office of the Diamond Controller
 3 Jabotinsky Road
 Ramat Gan 52520
 Israël
 JAPAN
 United Nations Policy Division
 Foreign Policy Bureau
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 2-2-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
 100-8919 Tokyo, Japan
 Japan
 KAZACHSTAN
 Ministry of Economy and Budget Planning
 Orynbor str., 8, entrance 7
 Administrative building ‘The house of ministries’
 010000 Astana
 Kazachstan
 KOREA (Republiek)
 Export Control Policy Division
 Ministry of Knowledge Economy
 Government Complex
 Jungang-dong 1, Gwacheon-si
 Gyeonggi-do 427-723
 Seoul
 Korea
 LAOS (Democratische Volksrepubliek)
 Department of Import and Export
 Ministry of Industry and Commerce
 Vientiane
 Laos
 LIBANON
 Ministry of Economy and Trade
 Lazariah Building
 Down Town
 Beiroet
 Libanon
 LESOTHO
 Department of Mines
 Corner Constitution and Parliament Road
 P.O. Box 750
 Maseru 100
 Lesotho
 LIBERIA
 Government Diamond Office
 Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy
 Capitol Hill
 P.O. Box 10-9024
 1000 Monrovia 10
 Liberia
 MALEISIË
 Ministry of International Trade and Industry
 Trade Cooperation and Industry Coordination Section
 Block 10
 Komplek Kerajaan Jalan Duta
 50622 Kuala Lumpur
 Maleisië
 MALI
 Ministère des Mines
 Bureau d'Expertise d'Evaluation et de Certification des Diamants Bruts
 Zone Industrielle Ex. DNGM
 Bamako
 Mali
 MAURITIUS
 Import Division
 Ministry of Industry, Small & Medium Enterprises, Commerce & Cooperatives
 4th Floor, Anglo Mauritius Building
 Intendance Street
 Port Louis
 Mauritius
 MEXICO
 Secretaría de Economía
 Dirección General de Política Comercial
 Alfonso Reyes No. 30, Colonia Hipodromo Condesa, Piso 16.
 Delegación Cuactemoc, Código Postal: 06140 México, D.F.
 Mexico
 NAMIBIË
 Diamond Commission
 Directorate of Diamond Affairs
 Ministry of Mines and Energy
 Private Bag 13297
 1st Aviation Road (Eros Airport)
 Windhoek
 Namibië
 NIEUW-ZEELAND
 Certificeringsautoriteit:
 Middle East and Africa Division
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
 Private Bag 18 901
 Wellington
 Nieuw-Zeeland
 In- en uitvoerautoriteit:
 New Zealand Customs Service
 PO Box 2218
 Wellington
 Nieuw-Zeeland
 NOORWEGEN
 Section for Public International Law
 Department for Legal Affairs
 Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 P.O. Box 8114
 0032 Oslo
 Noorwegen
 PANAMA
 General Direction of International Economic Affairs
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 San Felipe, Calle 3
 Palacio Bolívar, Edificio 26
 Panamá 4
 Republiek Panama
 RUSSISCHE FEDERATIE
 Internationaal:
 Ministry of Finance
 9, Ilyinka Street,
 109097 Moskou
 Rusland
 In- en uitvoerautoriteit:
 Gokhran of Russia
 14, 1812 Goda St.
 121170 Moskou
 Rusland
 SIERRA LEONE
 Ministry of Mineral Resources
 Gold and Diamond Office (GDO)
 Youyi Building
 Brookfields
 Freetown
 Sierra Leone
 SINGAPORE
 Ministry of Trade and Industry
 100 High Street
 #09-01, The Treasury,
 Singapore 179434
 ZUID-AFRIKA
 South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator
 SA Diamond Centre
 251 Fox Street
 Johannesburg 2000
 Zuid-Afrika
 SRI LANKA
 National Gem and Jewellery Authority
 25, Galleface Terrace
 Colombo 03
 Sri Lanka
 SWAZILAND
 Office for the Commissioner of Mines
 Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy
 Mining department
 Lilunga House (3rd floor, Wing B)
 Somhlolo Road
 PO Box 9,
 Mbabane H100
 Swaziland
 ZWITSERLAND
 State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO)
 Sanctions Unit
 Holzikofenweg 36
 CH-3003 Bern/Zwitserland
 TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN EN MATSU (Afzonderlijk douanegebied)
 Export/Import Administration Division
 Bureau of Foreign Trade
 Ministry of Economic Affairs
 1, Hu Kou Street
 Taipei, 100
 Taiwan
 TANZANIA
 Commission for Minerals
 Ministry of Energy and Minerals
 PO Box 2000
 Dar es Salaam
 Tanzania
 THAILAND
 Department of Foreign Trade
 Ministry of Commerce
 44/100 Nonthaburi 1 Road
 Muang District, Nonthaburi 11000
 Thailand
 TOGO
 Ministry of Mine, Energy and Water
 Head Office of Mines and Geology
 216, Avenue Sarakawa
 B.P. 356
 Lomé
 Togo
 TURKIJE
 Foreign Exchange Department
 Undersecretariat of Treasury
 T.C. Bașbakanlık Hazine
 Müsteșarlığı İnönü Bulvarı No:36
 06510 Emek — Ankara
 Turkije
 In- en uitvoerautoriteit:
 Istanbul Gold Exchange
 Rıhtım Cad. No:81
 34425 Karaköy — İstanbul
 Turkije
 OEKRAÏNE
 Ministry of Finance
 State Gemological Center
 Degtyarivska St. 38-44
 Kiev 04119
 Oekraïne
 VERENIGDE ARABISCHE EMIRATEN
 U.A.E Kimberley Process Office
 Dubai Multi Commodities Center
 Dubai Airport Free Zone
 Emirates Security Building
 Block B, 2nd Floor, Office # 20
 P.O. Box 48800
 Dubai
 Verenigde Arabische Emiraten
 VERENIGDE STATEN
 United States Kimberley Process Authority
 11 West 47 Street 11th floor
 New York, NY 10036
 Verenigde Staten van Amerika
 U.S. Department of State
 Room 4843 EB/ESC
 2201 C Street, NW
 Washington D.C. 20520
 Verenigde Staten van Amerika
 VIETNAM
 Ministry of Industry and Trade
 Import Export Management Department
 54 Hai Ba Trung,
 Hoan Kiem
 Hanoi
 Vietnam
 ZIMBABWE
 Principal Minerals Development Office
 Ministry of Mines and Mining Development
 Private Bag 7709, Causeway
 Harare
 Zimbabwe”


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Washington, DC 20416\n\n\n\n AUDIT REPORT\n Issue Date: September 24, 2004\n Report Number: 4-44\n\n To: Adela Soriano\n Associate Administrator for Strategic Alliances\n\n Mike Pappas\n Associate Administrator for Field Operations\n\n /S/ Original signed\n From: Robert G. Seabrooks\n Assistant Inspector General for Auditing\n\nSubject: Audit Report - Summary Audit of SBA-Sponsored and Cosponsored Events\n Conducted by District Offices\n\n Attached is a copy of the subject report. The report contains one finding and seven\n recommendations. You agreed with five recommendations and partially agreed with two. For\n the recommendations with partial agreements, we will reserve our comments to your responses\n until SOP 75 2 is updated. In addition, you provided comments concerning portions of the\n report. As a result of your comments, we modified certain passages in the report. A written\n evaluation of your comments is included as part of the report, and your comments have been\n included as an attachment.\n\n The finding in the report is the conclusion of the Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Auditing\n Division. The finding and recommendations are subject to your review and corrective action in\n accordance with existing Agency procedures for audit follow-up and resolution.\n\n Please provide your management response and actions to address the recommendations\n within 30 days from the date of this report on the attached SBA Form 1824, Recommendation\n Action Sheet. The SBA Forms should be sent to:\n\n Audit Manager\n SBA OIG/Auditing Field Office, Suite 1803\n 233 Peachtree Street, NE\n Atlanta, Georgia 30303\n\n Any questions you may have regarding this report should be directed to Garry Duncan,\n Director, Credit Programs Group, at (202) 205-[FOIA Ex. 2].\n\n Attachment\n\x0c SUMMARY AUDIT OF SBA-SPONSORED AND\n COSPONSORED EVENTS BY DISTRICT OFFICES\n\n ATLANTA, GEORGIA\n\n Audit Report Number 4-44\n\n September 24, 2004\n\n\n\n\nThe finding in this report is the conclusion of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Auditing Division based on testing of SBA\noperations. The finding and recommendations are subject to review, management decision, and corrective\naction in accordance with existing Agency procedures for follow-up and resolution. This report may contain\nproprietary information subject to the provisions of 18 USC 1905 and must not be released to the public or\nanother agency without permission of the Office of Inspector General.\n\x0c AUDIT REPORT\n\n SUMMARY AUDIT OF SBA-SPONSORED AND\n COSPONSORED EVENTS BY DISTRICT OFFICES\n\n Table of Contents\n\n\n\n\n Page\n\nSUMMARY ................................................................................................................. i\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n A. Background ........................................................................................................ 1\n\n B. Objective and Scope.......................................................................................... 1\n\n C. Statement of Management Controls.................................................................. 2\n\n D. Prior Audit Reports ........................................................................................... 2\n\n\nRESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding and Recommendations\n\n Improvements are needed in the Compliance, Guidance, and Oversight\n of SBA-Sponsored and Cosponsored Events......................................................... 3\n\nATTACHMENTS\n\n Exhibit A-Schedule of Noncompliances\n\n Attachment 1-Management Response\n\n Attachment 2-Report Distribution\n\x0c SUMMARY\n The purpose of this report is to summarize the areas of noncompliance and discuss the\ncauses applicable to the Small Business Administration (SBA) SBA-sponsored and cosponsored\nevents held by nine district offices. We used information from audits conducted of these events\nat three district offices and unaudited documentation furnished by the SBA Office of General\nCounsel (OGC) concerning such events held at six other district offices.\n\n Personnel for the nine district offices were involved in 16 SBA-sponsored and 33\ncosponsored events conducted during May 1999, to November 2002. Based on the audit results\nand unaudited documentation, district actions were summarized into19 noncompliances. The\nnoncompliances are categorized into three general areas:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Soliciting and accepting gifts and fees.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Planning, conducting, and reporting events.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Accounting for funds and non-cash assets.\n\n Sixteen of the noncompliances were applicable to more than one district office. We\nbelieve audits of other district offices would have disclosed the same or similar noncompliances.\nAs a result of the noncompliances, SBA personnel were operating in violation of Federal laws\nand could not ensure that Federal assets were properly safeguarded.\n\n Noncompliances were caused by: (i) district office personnel not following existing\nguidance; (ii) guidance not being sufficient or being nonexistent; and, (iii) oversight by\nheadquarters and regional personnel not being sufficient. Correction of these issues is imperative\ngiven SBA\xe2\x80\x99s current focus of increasing the marketing and outreach responsibilities of district\noffices.\n\n We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Strategic Alliances:\n(a) develop a training program for district office employees who will be involved in SBA-\nsponsored and cosponsored events; (b) develop standard operating procedures, in coordination\nwith OGC, addressing all aspects of SBA-sponsored events; and (c) revise Standard Operating\nProcedure (SOP) 90 75 2.\n\n We also recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Field Operations: (a)\nensure that district office personnel receive the appropriate training before planning, conducting,\nand managing funds related to SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events; and, (b) require that\nregional office personnel periodically review district office files of events for completeness and\ncompliance.\n\n In a combined response, the associate administrators fully agreed with five of our\nrecommendations and partially agreed with two. For the two partial agreements, they stated that\nupdates to SOP 90 75 2 will be made. We will reserve our comments to their response for these\ntwo recommendations until the updated SOP is issued.\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\nA. Background\n\n The Small Business Act (the Act) gives SBA statutory authority to sponsor a wide variety\nof training and counseling programs to assist small businesses. Events planned and conducted\nsolely by SBA are considered SBA-sponsored events. Also, section 8(b) (1) (a) of the Act\nauthorizes SBA to plan and conduct events jointly with public or private entities. These events\nare referred to as cosponsored events.\n\n SBA has statutory authority to accept cash and other types of gifts for use in conducting\nevents that provide technical and managerial assistance to small businesses and for other uses in\ncarrying out the purpose of the Act. Agency policies and procedures applicable to soliciting,\naccepting, and managing gifts, as well as planning and conducting SBA-sponsored and\ncosponsored events, are contained in Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 90 75 2,\nCosponsorships, SBA Procedural Notice 7000-136 and in OGC\xe2\x80\x99s Outreach Handbook..\n\n SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events occurred at both the headquarters and district\noffice levels. The responsible program official accountable for a specific cosponsorship event\nwas the district director at the district office level and a management board member at the\nheadquarters level. The Associate Administrator for Business Initiatives (AA/BI) had the\ngeneral duty to monitor all events, gift solicitations and acceptances, and identify and address\nproblems and concerns. The AA/BI responsibilities were transferred to the Associate\nAdministrator for Strategic Alliances (AA/SA) in June 2003. In addition to the AA/SA, an\noversight committee was required to meet to consider issues and concerns and to grant approvals\nrequired by the SOP.\n\nB. Objective and Scope\n\n The objective of the audit was to summarize the areas of noncompliance with SBA\npolicies and procedures and Federal laws for specific field offices conducting SBA-sponsored\nand cosponsored events. To answer the objective, the results of audits conducted of events held\nby the Georgia District Office (GDO), the Los Angeles District Office (LADO), and the Puerto\nRico & Virgin Islands District Office (PRVIDO) were analyzed.1 The audit periods varied for\neach office and collectively ranged from May 1999 to November 2002. The audits consisted of\nreviews of financial records and other documents obtained from SBA, vendors, cosponsors, and\ndonors. Personnel from SBA district offices, headquarters, cosponsors, and donors were\ninterviewed. The audits were accomplished on-site at the GDO and LADO. The audit of the\nPRVIDO was performed at the OIG Atlanta Field Office. Fieldwork for this summary audit was\naccomplished during the period November 2003 to January 2004.\n\n The audit was accomplished in accordance with generally accepted Government Auditing\nStandards.\n\n1\n Audit of Georgia District Office Sponsorship Activities, Report 2-25\n Cosponsorship Activities \xe2\x80\x93 Los Angeles District Office, Report 4-03\n Audit of Puerto Rico &Virgin Island District Office Cosponsored and SBA-Sponsored Activities, Report 4-07\n\n\n 1\n\x0c In addition, information about SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events conducted by six\nother district offices (Mississippi, North Carolina, North Florida, South Florida, St. Louis, and\nUtah) between October 1999 and September 2002 was utilized. This information was obtained\nfrom the district offices and legal documents provided by SBA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of General Counsel. The\ninformation, however, was not verified.\n\nC. Statement on Management Controls\n\n Our assessment of management controls, policies, procedures, and practices included\nthose applicable to the planning, conducting, and oversight of SBA-sponsored and cosponsored\nevents. The audit was performed to summarize the causes of noncompliances identified during\nour audits and reviews of unaudited documentation about SBA outreach events. A study and\nevaluation made for the limited purpose described above would not necessarily disclose all\nmaterial weaknesses in the management controls. Our assessment, however, disclosed material\nmanagement control weaknesses applicable to the training, guidance, and oversight applicable to\nSBA-sponsored and cosponsored events held by district offices. Details of these weaknesses are\nfully discussed in the Results of Audit section of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFINDING Improvements are needed in the Compliance, Guidance, and Oversight of\n SBA-Sponsored and Cosponsored Events\n\n Nine district offices did not operate in compliance with Federal laws and SBA policies\nand procedures for 16 SBA-sponsored and 33 cosponsored events held between May 1999 and\nNovember 2002. The noncompliances identified were categorized as follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Soliciting and accepting gifts and fees,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 planning, conducting, and reporting events, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 accounting for funds and non-cash assets.\n\nThe causes for the noncompliances included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 field office personnel not following existing guidance;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inadequate and nonexistent guidance; and,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 insufficient oversight by headquarters and regional personnel.\n\nAs a result of the noncompliances, SBA personnel operated in violation of Federal requirements\nand there was no assurance that Federal assets were properly safeguarded.\n\nField office personnel did not comply with existing requirements\n\n During the review period, nine district offices held various types of SBA-sponsored and\ncosponsored events. There were short-term events (less than one week in length) such as Small\nBusiness Week Award luncheons and dinners, lender conferences, lender recognition breakfasts\nand long-term events such as business information centers, business resource centers, and\nprograms with schools and not-for-profit organizations. Funding for each event consisted of one\nor more of the following: fees, cosponsor contributions, gifts, or in-kind donations.\n\n Based on audits of three district offices and unaudited documentation concerning events\nat six other district offices, we determined 19 areas of noncompliance occurred during the\nplanning, conducting, reporting, and accounting for funds for 49 SBA-sponsored and\ncosponsored events (see exhibit A). Sixteen of the noncompliances occurred at multiple district\noffices. There were, however, three noncompliances that occurred at more district offices than\nthe others.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Gifts not deposited into the Business Assistance Trust (BAT) Fund\n According to SOP 90 75 2, employees must deposit cash gifts to SBA into the BAT\n Fund. Gift funds for events held by eight district offices were not deposited into the\n Fund. For the three district offices whose events were audited, cash gifts totaling\n $345,169 were received but were not deposited as required. The district directors for five\n of the unaudited district offices stated that they also received cash gifts that were not\n deposited into the BAT Fund.\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Conflict of interest analyses\n According to SOP 90 75 2, before a gift may be solicited or accepted from sources\n having a business relationship with SBA, the approving official, with the assistance of\n legal counsel, must conclude that the gift would not create an actual or apparent conflict\n of interest. The OIG believes that lenders authorized to make Section 7(a) loans have a\n business relationship with SBA.\n For events held by seven districts, gifts were solicited and/or accepted from lenders in the\n Section 7(a) loan program without a conflict of interest determination being made. For\n the three district offices whose events were audited, the cash gifts totaled $231,275.\n Conflict of interest determinations may have shown that the lenders submitted loan\n applications, amendments to loan agreements, or requests for SBA to honor its guaranty\n at or around the time they were solicited for gifts. These situations could have created\n the appearance of a conflict of interest.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Fees were collected without authorization\n Section 8(b)(1)(a) of the Act permits SBA to charge minimal fees to small business\n concerns to cover the direct cost of providing assistance in for-profit cosponsored events.\n Eight district offices did not comply with the Act when they charged registration and\n vendor fees for SBA-sponsored and not-for-profit cosponsored events. Audits of three of\n these district offices showed that a total of $147,789 in fees was collected contrary to the\n Act.\n\nCauses for the noncompliances\n\n The noncompliances resulted in the districts being in violation of the Small Business Act,\nFederal laws, and SOP 90 75 2. Based on our audit results, we determined that the causes for the\nnoncompliances could be categorized into three areas: failure to follow guidance, inadequate or\nnonexistent guidance, and insufficient oversight. For the first category we found:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A lack of familiarity with some or all the SOP requirements.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A belief that the SOP requirements were not applicable to their events.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A dependence upon district counsel for advice.\n\n For three district offices, personnel indicated that no formal training concerning SBA-\nsponsored and cosponsored events was received prior to fiscal year (FY) 2002. We did not\nascertain if formal training was provided to the remaining district offices. If district office\npersonnel had received formal training, they should have been familiar with the SOP\nrequirements applicable to their events. In turn, this may have resulted in a better understanding\nof the guidance by all district personnel.\n\nGuidance provided by SBA either was not adequate or nonexistent\n\n Another reason for the noncompliances was the quality of the existing guidance. An SOP\nfor SBA-sponsored events did not exist. Prior to FY 2002, the primary guidance for planning,\nconducting, and reporting SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events was SOP 90 75 2 which\n\n\n 4\n\x0cprimarily addressed cosponsorship events. Individual district directors either stated that the SOP\ndid not address all aspects of SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events or that it was incomplete\nand unclear.\n\n Our audit validated the district directors\xe2\x80\x99 statements that the SOP either did not address\ncertain aspects of SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events or had incomplete or unclear\ninformation.\n\n Examples of aspects that were not addressed in the SOP included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Definition of the term \xe2\x80\x9ccosponsor contributions.\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Propriety of setting levels of recognition based on levels of contributions.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Minimal duties of a fiscal agent.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Accountability of cosponsorship assets.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Procedures for conducting conflict of interest determinations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Procedures describing how and when to deposit and withdraw gift funds from the\n BAT Fund.\n\n Examples of guidance that were incomplete or unclear in the SOP included the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Conflicting statements about providing counseling during for-profit cosponsorships.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Which eligibility requirements, if not done, would cause an event to be an\n unauthorized cosponsorship as opposed to a procedurally flawed cosponsorship.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Soliciting or accepting of gifts through a third party on SBA\xe2\x80\x99s behalf was not clear.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Solicitations by a cosponsor using SBA\xe2\x80\x99s logo or the signature of an SBA official\n constituted a solicitation by SBA.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Terms \xe2\x80\x9cactively and substantially\xe2\x80\x9d as used in the definition of the term \xe2\x80\x9ccosponsor\xe2\x80\x9d\n not defined.\n\n SBA issued in FY 2002: Procedural Notice 7000-136, SBA-Sponsored Events, to provide\ngeneral guidance relating to SBA- sponsored events; in FY 2003, the Outreach Handbook \xe2\x80\x9cto\nplace the SOP requirements in a larger context;\xe2\x80\x9d and, in FY 2003, issued Procedural Notice\n2000-664 addressing use of the Business Assistance Trust Fund. This additional guidance was\nissued after most of the applicable events were held by the nine district offices. The guidance,\nhowever, did not address all of the aforementioned problems.\n\nOversight by headquarters and regional personnel needed improvement\n\n The noncompliances were not prevented nor identified by SBA because existing\noversight procedures were insufficient. As previously stated, the Office of Business and\nCommunity Initiatives (OBCI) and then OSA was responsible for monitoring all events, gift\nsolicitations and acceptances, and to identify and address problems and concerns. These offices\nwere supposed to receive quarterly reports for each cosponsored event and all gift activity that\noccurred during each quarter. Additionally, the SOP requires that district directors maintain files\nfor each cosponsorship and the OSA retain a copy for each for-profit cosponsorship.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c These procedures did not include SBA-sponsored events or controls to ensure\ncompliance. For the three audited district offices, we found no evidence that on-site reviews of\ndistrict office files by headquarters and regional personnel were routinely done. As a result,\nthere was no assurance that OBCI was aware of all events prior to their occurrence or that the\ndistricts were operating in compliance with policies and procedures.\n\nRecommendations\n\n We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Office of Strategic Alliances, take the\nfollowing actions:\n\n 1. A Develop a training program for district office employees who will be involved in\n planning or conducting SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events.\n\n 1. B Develop and issue, in coordination with the Office of General Counsel, standard\n operating procedures addressing SBA-sponsored events.\n\n 1. C Revise SOP 90 75 2 to address procedures for:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 conducting conflict of interest determinations,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 minimal duties of a fiscal agent,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 accounting for cosponsorship assets,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 defining the terms \xe2\x80\x9cactively\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9csubstantially\xe2\x80\x9d as used in the definition of a\n cosponsorship.\n\n 1. D Revise SOP 90 75 2 to clarify:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 when counseling can be provided during all cosponsored events,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the minimal requirements for a cosponsorship to be an authorized event,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the portion of SOP 90 75 2 addressing SBA employees soliciting or accepting\n gifts on SBA\xe2\x80\x99s behalf through a third party, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 that solicitations by a cosponsor using SBA\xe2\x80\x99s logo or the signature of an SBA\n official could be considered a solicitation by SBA.\n\n 1. E Revise SOP 90 75 2 to require that district offices maintain files for SBA-\n sponsored events and report the information to SBA headquarters.\n\n We recommend that the Associate Administrator for Field Operations take the following\nactions:\n\n 1. F Ensure that district office personnel receive the appropriate training before being\n involved in the planning, conduct, and funds management related to SBA-\n sponsored and cosponsored events.\n\n 1. G Ensure that periodic reviews of district office SBA-sponsored and cosponsored\n event files are done to ensure completeness and compliance with existing\n requirements.\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cManagement Comments\n\n In a combined response, dated September 20, 2004, the Associate Administrator for\nStrategic Alliances and the Associate Administrator for Field Operations agreed with five of the\nrecommendations and partially agreed with two recommendations. For the agreed upon\nrecommendations, the administrators stated that corrective actions are in process or have already\nbeen implemented. For the two recommendations with partial agreements the administrators\nstated that SBA\xe2\x80\x99s plans to update SOP 90 75 2 will resolve the issues. In addition to their\nresponse to the recommendations, the administrators also provided editorial comments\nconcerning the content of the report.\n\nEvaluation of Management Comments\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s responses to the recommendations are acceptable. Concerning the two\npartially agreed to recommendations, we will reserve our comments until the updated SOP is\nissued. We considered their comments concerning the report\xe2\x80\x99s contents and made changes\nwhere necessary.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c EXHIBIT A\n Audited District Offices Unaudited District Offices #\n\n Los Puerto\n Georgia Angeles Rico Mississippi N. Carolina N. Florida S. Florida Utah St. Louis Totals\n SBA-sponsored events 3 0 0 3 1 2 2 5 0 16\n Cosponsored events 2 9 6 2 5 4 2 2 1 33\n NONCOMPLIANCES\n\n Soliciting and Accepting Gifts and Fees\n\n1 gifts solicited and accepted from proscribed sources X X X X 4\n gifts solicited and accepted without conflict of interest\n2 determinations (other than section 7(a) lenders) X X x 3\n3 gifts from 7(a) lenders with no conflict determination X X X X X X X 7\n4 gifts to SBA not deposited into the BATF X X X X X X X X 8\n5 gift funds or cosponsor contributions used for prohibited purposes X X X 3\n6 fees collected without authorization X X X X X X X X 8\n7 fees charged inappropriately X X X 3\n Accounting for Funds and Non-Cash Assets\n excess funds (gifts and fees) not identified and returned to\n8 donors/payees. X X X X 4\n funds (gifts and fees) were not disposed of or were used\n9 improperly. X X X 3\n accounting for funds (commingled gifts, cosponsor contributions,\n10 fees) X X X X X X 6\n11 controls for disbursement of funds X X 2\n12 accounting for event assets X 1\n Planning, Conducting and Reporting Events\n pre-event documents not prepared or prepared improperly or\n13 executed improperly X X 2\n14 pre-event documents not submitted to HQ. X X X 3\n15 gifts forms not prepared, filed, and submitted to HQ X X X X 4\n16 proscribed cosponsor X 1\n17 procurements made without contracting authority X X X 4\n18 counseling activities were improperly included X 1\n19 post event reporting X X 2\n # noncompliances cited for the unaudited district offices were based on statements made by district directors during interviews with OGC and plaintiff counsels. There may have been\n additional noncompliances.\n\x0c ATTACHMENT 1\nDATE: September 20, 2004\n\nTO: Robert G. Seabrooks\n Assistant Inspector General for Auditing\n\nFROM: Adela Soriano\n Associate Administrator for Strategic Alliances\n\n Mike Pappas\n Associate Administrator for Field Operations\n\nSUBJECT: Draft Report \xe2\x80\x93 Summary Audit of SBA-Sponsored and Cosponsored Events Conducted By\n District Offices\n\n\nThis is SBA\xe2\x80\x99s formal response to the Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG) Draft Audit Report, referred to above. We\nhave previously discussed issues concerning SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events with Mr. James Hudson,\nDirector, Auditing Division, Atlanta and we appreciate the opportunity to comment on your Draft Report.\n\nThis Draft Report summarizes violations and identifies possible underlying management reasons in 49 SBA-\nsponsored and cosponsored events that were planned and conducted by SBA district offices during the period May\n1999 to November 2002. The Draft Report finds that all but three of the 19 specific violations were found in more\nthan one district office\xe2\x80\x99s event(s). Information from 20 events audited and analyzed in the Georgia, Los Angeles,\nand Puerto Rico audits were re-analyzed for this Draft Report, along with information from 29 events which\noccurred in six other district offices and were analyzed for this Draft Report from documents provided by SBA\xe2\x80\x99s\nOffice of General Counsel (OGC) but which were not verified or otherwise audited by OIG. The Draft Report finds\nthat \xe2\x80\x9cImprovements are needed in the Compliance, Guidance, and Oversight of SBA-sponsored and Cosponsored\nEvents,\xe2\x80\x9d based on three \xe2\x80\x9ccauses for the noncompliances:\xe2\x80\x9d 1) failure of field personnel to follow existing guidance\n(based on findings of a lack of familiarity with some or all the SOP requirements, a belief that the SOP requirements\nwere not applicable to their events, and a dependence upon district counsel for advice); 2) insufficient or nonexistent\nguidance; and 3) insufficient oversight by headquarters and regional office personnel.\n\nWe have identified two general points of clarification that pertain to the entire Draft Report. First, as noted in the\nDraft Report, the Office of Strategic Alliances (OSA) was established in June 2003, approximately seven months\nafter November 2002, the end of the period analyzed in the Draft Report. The Draft Report acknowledges the\ntransfer of responsibility in June 2003, but nevertheless states that, \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6OSA was responsible for monitoring all\nevents, gift solicitations and acceptances\xe2\x80\xa6.\xe2\x80\x9d (Page 5 under heading \xe2\x80\x9cOversight by Headquarters\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d.) The Draft\nReport also states on page 6, first paragraph that, \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6there was no assurance that the OSA was aware of all events\nprior to their occurrence or that the districts were operating in compliance with policies and procedures.\xe2\x80\x9d The events\nanalyzed for this audit were all planned and conducted prior to OSA\xe2\x80\x99s existence. Since OSA was not yet operational\nduring the period examined by the Draft Report, it should not be held responsible for deficiencies. Since OSA was\ncreated and relevant responsibilities were transferred from the Associate Administrator for Business and Community\nInitiatives (AA/BCI) to the Associate Administrator for Strategic Alliances (AA/OSA), a number of items\nrecommended in the Draft Report have been accomplished. Second, reference to \xe2\x80\x9csponsored\xe2\x80\x9d events in the Draft\nReport are confusing because the Agency has not defined the term and does not use the term. The Agency has\nauthority to conduct cosponsored events and SBA-sponsored events. The distinction is important because different\nrules apply to each.\n\nThe following are noted as points of clarification, agreement/disagreement, or correction as related to the Draft\nReport summary, introduction, finding, and recommendations.\n\x0c Discussion of Summary and Introduction\n\nSummary\n\nThe third general area of noncompliance is \xe2\x80\x9caccounting for funds and non-cash assets,\xe2\x80\x9d yet in Exhibit A, the general\ncategory of noncompliance is entitled, \xe2\x80\x9caccountability for funds and non-cash assets.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nWe understand that all but three of the 19 specific violations of policy or procedure, referred to in the Draft Report\nas \xe2\x80\x9cnoncompliances,\xe2\x80\x9d were found in more than one district office.\n\nIntroduction\n\n A. Background\n\nPage 1, Paragraph 2: We agree that SBA has statutory authority to accept gifts, including cash, to carry out its\nfunctions under the Small Business Act, including for use in conducting events that provide technical and\nmanagerial assistance to small businesses.\n\nIt is more accurate to refer to \xe2\x80\x9cagency policies and procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d rather than \xe2\x80\x9cprocedures and prohibitions.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nSBA-sponsored events are mentioned in SOP 90 75 2 only cursorily. Guidance for such events is found in SBA\nProcedural Notice 7000-136 and in OGC\xe2\x80\x99s Outreach Handbook.\n\nPage 1, Paragraph 3: The district director and local counsel have authority to clear/authorize cosponsorships with\nnonprofits without headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 approval or oversight, so long as the dollar value of the event does not exceed\n$200,000 or involve public officials. If the value exceeds $200,000 or a public official is involved in the\ncosponsorship, the Oversight Committee must concur. See SOP 90 75 2, \xc2\xb6 13. Such events are reported but\noversight relies on field awareness and applications of established procedures.\n\n B. Objective and Scope\n\nThe objective of the audit was to summarize areas of noncompliance of certain or specific field offices, not all field\noffices conducting SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events. (See paragraph 1.)\n\n C. Statement on Management Controls\n\nNo comment.\n\n Discussion of OIG Findings and Recommendations\n\nFinding: Improvements are needed in the Compliance, Guidance, and Oversight of SBA-sponsored and\nCosponsored Events. Based on the Draft Report, SBA cannot reach firm conclusions about the actual execution of\nthe subject events and their compliance or noncompliance with the statute, or Agency policy and procedures. SBA\xe2\x80\x99s\ngeneral comments follow:\n\n 1. Field office personnel did not comply with existing requirements. The Draft Report determined that the\n \xe2\x80\x9cnoncompliances\xe2\x80\x9d occurred because field office personnel either did not follow or did not understand the\n requirements. SBA maintains that field offices successfully complete cosponsorships all the time, both\n before the time covered by the Draft Report and since. SBA\xe2\x80\x99s general comments on three specific topics\n raised in the Draft Report follow:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Gifts not deposited into the Business Assistance Trust (BAT) Fund. SBA agrees that cash gifts to\n SBA must be deposited into the BAT Fund. Based on the Draft Report, however, SBA is not certain\n that all cash gifts discussed were, in fact, gifts to SBA. SBA\xe2\x80\x99s cosponsors bring a variety of goods and\n services to cosponsorships. A cosponsor, according to its own rules, may solicit and accept donations\n or contract for goods and services and, in turn, offer them, including cash, in support of a\n\x0c cosponsorship with SBA. Cash, brought to a cosponsorship by the cosponsor is not classified as either\n \xe2\x80\x9ca gift to the cosponsorship\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9ca gift to SBA.\xe2\x80\x9d It is simply a contribution to the cosponsorship,\n known to SBA as a cash injection, which must be placed in the fiscal agent\xe2\x80\x99s account and NOT in the\n BAT Fund. Because a cosponsorship is an agreement, not an entity, it cannot accept a gift, only an\n entity may do so. In summary, a cosponsor may accept a gift which it then provides in support of a\n cosponsorship. Such an item is not considered a gift to SBA and need not be deposited into the BAT\n Fund if it is cash. On the other hand, SBA may accept a gift in support of a cosponsorship, but it must\n be deposited into the BAT Fund if it is a cash gift.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Conflict of interest analysis. SBA is aware of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s concerns relating to the propriety of soliciting\n and accepting gifts from SBA participant lenders, and agrees that lenders authorized to make Section\n 7(a) loans have a business relationship with SBA, that a gift from a participant lender could only be\n accepted on a case-by-case basis after a conflict of interest analysis has been performed. SOP 90 75 2,\n \xc2\xb6 18.b. Neither the existence of a loan application or a request to honor SBA\xe2\x80\x99s guaranty on a particular\n loan, however, have ever, in and of themselves, been deemed to create an apparent or actual conflict of\n interest with the participant lender. To the extent that district offices failed to complete and document\n the required case-by-case analysis as required by established SBA policy before soliciting and\n accepting gifts from participant lenders, SBA agrees that SBA policy has been violated. It does not\n follow, however, that such funds could not ultimately be accepted by SBA under current policy.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Fees were collected without authorization. The SOP states that only minimal charges may be\n imposed on any small business concern to cover the direct costs of a cosponsorship, and that such fees\n must be the first source of funds used to pay cosponsorship expenses. See SOP 90 75 2, \xc2\xb6 12.b.\n Neither the SOP nor the Small Business Act limits the ability of SBA to charge a fee at a\n cosponsorship that does not include a for-profit cosponsor. This legal issue was settled by an OGC\n legal opinion dated February 26, 1991. Based on the information provided in the Draft Report, SBA is\n unable to comment on the assertion that $147,789 in fees was collected contrary to the Act.\n\n 2. Guidance provided by SBA either was not adequate or nonexistent. SBA believes that the existing\n SOP (90 75 2) provides field offices sufficient guidance regarding many if not all of the issues identified\n and discussed in the Draft Report, especially since the SOP has been supplemented by procedural notices,\n training, and guidance from several SBA program office, including OGC, since the events occurred. Field\n offices successfully complete SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events regularly, both during the time\n covered by the Draft Report, and now, and in accordance with existing law and SBA policy. Additionally,\n the Draft Report details the long list of actions taken by SBA between the close of the period covered by\n the Draft Audit and today providing guidance and training to the field on the issues that arise in planning\n and conducting SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events. The Draft Report fails to mention that all\n attorneys were trained in-person in November 2002.\n\n 3. Oversight by headquarters and regional personnel needed improvement. While SBA agrees that the\n SOP (90 75 2) could be written in a more comprehensive manner, we do not agree that it is inadequate to\n guide a district office through a cosponsored event. Additionally, there is no current requirement for on-\n site reviews of district office files by headquarters or regional office personnel. The Office of Field\n Operations will be working with the Office of Strategic Alliances to add a review of cosponsorship files to\n QSR reviews of field offices.\n\n\n\n\nRecommendations:\n\n1.A Develop a training program for district office employees who will be involved in planning or conducting\nSBA-sponsored and cosponsored events. Agree. OSA has implemented a series of training presentations which\nare being provided via web-enabled conference calls to the field between August and October 2004. The materials\nwill be loaded to Field Operation\xe2\x80\x99s webpage and to OSA\xe2\x80\x99s soon-to-be-released webpages. Additional materials will\n\x0cbe made available to all SBA employees on SBA\xe2\x80\x99s intranet to allow for continuous training on SBA-sponsored and\ncosponsored events. All field attorneys were trained in-person in November 2002.\n\n\n1.B Develop and issue, in coordination with the Office of General Counsel, standard operating procedures\naddressing SBA-sponsored events. Agree. SBA will soon be issuing standard operating procedures for SBA-\nsponsored events which, as recommended in Recommendation 1.E, below, will contain file maintenance and\nreporting requirements.\n\n1.C Revise SOP 90 75 2 to address procedures for:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Conducting conflict of interest determinations. Agree. SBA plans to update SOP 90 75 2, and any\n revision will include an updated conflict of interest checklist.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Minimal duties of fiscal agent. Agree. SBA plans to update SOP 90 75 2, and any revision will include\n minimal duties of a fiscal agent.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Accounting for cosponsorship assets. Agree. SBA plans to update SOP 90 75 2, and any revision will\n include procedures for accounting and disposition of excess cosponsorship funds. All relevant \xe2\x80\x9cassets\xe2\x80\x9d\n utilized in a cosponsorship will belong either to the cosponsor or to SBA. A cosponsorship is an\n agreement, not an entity, so it cannot hold or own property. If goods are purchased with a cosponsor\xe2\x80\x99s cash\n injection, it must be agreed which party will own the goods at the close of the cosponsorship, or the\n cosponsor has the option of donating the goods to SBA at the close of the cosponsorship.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Defining the terms \xe2\x80\x9cactively\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9csubstantially\xe2\x80\x9d as used in the definition of a cosponsorship. SBA\n disagrees that those two words require special definition. SBA plans to update SOP 90 75 2 and any\n revision will include definitions that firmly differentiate between \xe2\x80\x9cdonors\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9ccosponsors.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n1.D Revise SOP 90 75 2 to clarify:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 When counseling can be provided during all cosponsored events. Agree. SBA plans to update SOP 90\n 75 2 and any revision will include guidance on counseling at cosponsored events.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The minimal requirements for a cosponsorship to be an authorized event. SBA does not agree that\n \xe2\x80\x9cauthorized event\xe2\x80\x9d is a term that requires definition or explanation in formal Agency policy. However, if a\n cosponsorship is technically or procedurally flawed because it has not been properly approved, for instance,\n the Agency has the authority to ratify the cosponsorship after the fact, making it valid in all respects. This\n is to be clearly distinguished from an event that could not be a cosponsored event at all because if falls\n outside the legal definition of a cosponsorship, such as a lenders conference. SBA plans to update SOP 90\n 75 2 and any revision will include requirements for authorizing events.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The portion of SOP 90 75 2 addressing SBA employees soliciting or accepting gifts on SBA\xe2\x80\x99s behalf\n through a third party. Agree. SBA plans to update SOP 90 75 2 and any revision will include a\n discussion of the concept of \xe2\x80\x9ccash injection.\xe2\x80\x9d The Agency does not intend that goods, services or cash\n which are solicited by a cosponsor alone and brought to the cosponsorship as the cosponsor\xe2\x80\x99s contribution\n are to be treated as gifts to the Agency. Additionally, SBA cannot have a third party solicit or accept\n money for SBA\xe2\x80\x99s unrestricted, general use.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 That solicitations by a cosponsor using SBA\xe2\x80\x99s logo or the signature of an SBA official could be\n considered a solicitation by SBA. Agree. SBA plans to update SOP 90 75 2 and any revision will include\n a clarification that solicitations using SBA\xe2\x80\x99s logo or the signature of an SBA official could be considered a\n solicitation by SBA.\n .\n1.E Revise SOP 90 75 2 to require that district offices maintain files for SBA-sponsored events and report\ninformation to SBA Headquarters. See response to Recommendation 1.B, above.\n\x0c1.F Ensure that district office personnel receive the appropriate training before being involved in the\nplanning, conduct, and funds management related to SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events. Agree. The\nOffice of Field Operations (OFO) is committed to on-going training for the proper conduct and management of\nSBA-sponsored and cosponsored events. OFO is working in conjunction with OSA to efficiently provide adequate\ntraining to all district office personnel involved in SBA-sponsored and cosponsored events, including district\ndirectors, deputy district directors, public information officers, and RCD (?). All field attorneys were trained by\nOGC in November 2002.\n\n1.G Ensure that periodic reviews of district office SBA-sponsored and cosponsored event files are done to\nensure completeness and compliance with existing requirements. SBA agrees and is exploring available options.\nAs cited earlier, the Office of Field Operations will be working with the Office of Strategic Alliances to create such\nperiodic reviews.\n\n\n\nAgain, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your Draft Audit Report. If you have any questions\nregarding the items or updates cited above, please contact either of us to discuss the matter.\n\x0c Attachment 2\n\n REPORT DISTRIBUTION\n\n\nRecipient No. of Copies\n\nAssociate Deputy Administrator for Strategic Alliances...........................................1\n\nAssociate Deputy Administrator for Entrepreneurial Development..........................1\n\nAssociate Administrator for Field Operations ...........................................................1\n\nFinancial Administrative Staff...................................................................................1\n Attention: Jeff Brown\n\nGeneral Counsel.........................................................................................................3\n\nGovernment Accountability Office............................................................................1\n\x0c'