text:
8.11.2008
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 C 285/2
 Sentenza della Corte (Grande Sezione) 3 settembre 2008 — Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Al Barakaat International Foundation/Consiglio dell'Unione europea, Commissione delle Comunità europee, Regno Unito di Gran Bretagna e Irlanda del Nord
 (Cause riunite C-402/05 P e C-415/05 P) (1)
 (Politica estera e di sicurezza comune (PESC) - Misure restrittive nei confronti di persone ed entità associate a Osama bin Laden, alla rete Al-Qaeda e ai talibani - Nazioni Unite - Consiglio di sicurezza - Risoluzioni adottate ai sensi del capitolo VII della Carta delle Nazioni Unite - Attuazione nella Comunità - Posizione comune 2002/402/PESC - Regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002 - Misure riguardanti persone ed entità incluse in un elenco redatto da un organismo delle Nazioni Unite - Congelamento di capitali e di risorse economiche - Comitato del Consiglio di sicurezza istituito dal n. 6 della risoluzione del Consiglio di sicurezza 1267 (1999) (comitato per le sanzioni) - Inclusione di tali persone ed entità nell'allegato I del regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002 - Ricorso di annullamento - Competenza della Comunità - Fondamento normativo combinato degli artt. 60 CE, 301 CE e 308 CE - Diritti fondamentali - Diritto al rispetto della proprietà, diritto al contraddittorio e diritto ad un controllo giurisdizionale effettivo)
 (2008/C 285/03)
 Lingua processuale: l'inglese e lo svedese
 Parti
 Ricorrenti: Yassin Abdullah Kadi (rappresentanti: I. Brownlie, QC, e D. Anderson, QC, P. Saini, barrister, G. Martin, solicitor), Al Barakaat International Foundation (rappresentanti: L. Silbersky e T. Olsson, advokater)
 Altre parti nel procedimento: Consiglio dell'Unione europea (rappresentanti: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan ed E. Karlsson, agenti), Commissione delle Comunità europee (rappresentanti: C. Brown, J. Enegren e P.J. Kuijper, agenti), Regno Unito di Gran Bretagna e Irlanda del Nord (rappresentanti: R. Caudwell, E. Jenkinson e S. Behzadi-Spencer, agenti, C. Greenwood, QC, ed A. Dashwood, barrister),
 Intervenienti a sostegno del Consiglio dell'Unione europea: Regno di Spagna (rappresentanti: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, agente), Repubblica francese (rappresentanti: G. de Bergues, E. Belliard e S. Gasri, agenti), Regno dei Paesi Bassi (rappresentanti: H.G. Sevenster e M. de Mol, agenti)
 Interveniente a sostegno della Commissione delle Comunità europee: Repubblica francese (rappresentanti: G. de Bergues, E. Belliard e S. Gasri, agenti)
 Oggetto
 Ricorso proposto avverso la sentenza 21 settembre 2005 nella causa T-315/01, Yassin Abdullah Kadi contro Consiglio dell'Unione europea e Commissione delle Comunità europee con la quale il Tribunale di primo grado delle Comunità europee (Seconda Sezione ampliata) ha dichiarato a) non luogo a statuire sulla domanda di annullamento del ricorrente del regolamento (CE) della Commissione 19 ottobre 2001, n. 2062, che modifica per la terza volta il regolamento (CE) n. 467/2001 del Consiglio che vieta l'esportazione di talune merci e servizi in Afghanistan, inasprisce il divieto dei voli e estende il congelamento dei capitali e delle altre risorse finanziarie nei confronti dei talibani dell'Afghanistan, e abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 337/2000 (GU L 227, pag. 25), nella parte in cui aggiunge il ricorrente all'elenco delle persone e delle entità cui si applica il congelamento dei capitali prescritto dal regolamento sopra menzionato e b) infondata e respinta la domanda di annullamento del ricorrente del regolamento (CE) del Consiglio, 27 maggio 2002, n. 881, che impone specifiche misure restrittive nei confronti di determinate persone ed entità associate a Osama bin Laden, alla rete Al-Qaeda e ai Talibani e abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 467/2001 (GU L 139, pag. 9), nella parte in cui tali atti riguardano il detto ricorrente
 Ricorso contro la sentenza pronunciata dal Tribunale di primo grado (Seconda Sezione ampliata) il 21 settembre 2005, nella causa T-306/01, Yusuf e Al Barakaat International Foundation/Consiglio e Commissione, con cui il Tribunale ha respinto un ricorso avente ad oggetto una domanda di annullamento del regolamento (CE) del Consiglio 27 maggio 2002, n. 881, che impone specifiche misure restrittive nei confronti di determinate persone ed entità associate a Osama bin Laden, alla rete Al-Qaeda e ai Talibani e abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 467/2001
 Dispositivo
 1)
 Le sentenze del Tribunale di primo grado delle Comunità europee 21 settembre 2005, causa T-315/01, Kadi/Consiglio e Commissione, nonché causa T-306/01, Yusuf e Al Barakaat International Foundation/Consiglio e Commissione, sono annullate.
 2)
 Il regolamento (CE) del Consiglio 27 maggio 2002, n. 881, che impone specifiche misure restrittive nei confronti di determinate persone ed entità associate a Osama bin Laden, alla rete Al-Qaeda e ai talibani e abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 467/2001 che vieta l'esportazione di talune merci e servizi in Afghanistan, inasprisce il divieto dei voli e estende il congelamento dei capitali e delle altre risorse finanziarie nei confronti dei talibani dell'Afghanistan, è annullato nella parte in cui riguarda il sig. Kadi e la Al Barakaat International Foundation.
 3)
 Gli effetti del regolamento n. 881/2002, nella parte in cui riguarda il sig. Kadi e la Al Barakaat International Foundation, sono mantenuti per un periodo non eccedente i tre mesi a decorrere dalla data di pronuncia della presente sentenza.
 4)
 Il Consiglio dell'Unione europea e la Commissione delle Comunità europee sono condannati a sopportare, oltre alle proprie spese, ciascuno la metà delle spese sostenute dal sig. Kadi e dalla Al Barakaat International Foundation sia in primo grado sia nel corso delle presenti impugnazioni.
 5)
 Il Regno Unito di Gran Bretagna e Irlanda del Nord sopporterà le proprie spese sostenute sia in primo grado sia nel corso delle presenti impugnazioni.
 6)
 Il Regno di Spagna, la Repubblica francese nonché il Regno dei Paesi Bassi sopporteranno le proprie spese.
 (1) GU C 36 dell'11.2.2006.
 GU C 48 del 25.2.2006.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
21.12.2013
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 377/7
 Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Corte suprema di cassazione (Italien) den 22. oktober 2013 — Agenzia delle Dogane og Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane mod ADL American Dataline Srl
 (Sag C-546/13)
 2013/C 377/15
 Processprog: italiensk
 Den forelæggende ret
 Corte suprema di cassazione
 Parter i hovedsagen
 Sagsøgere: Agenzia delle Dogane og Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane
 Sagsøgt: ADL American Dataline Srl
 Præjudicielle spørgsmål
 1)
 Er artikel 10, stk. 2, og artikel 12 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2658/87 (1) af 23. juli 1987 samt retssikkerhedsprincippet til hinder for, at der af de ved Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1549/2006 af 17. oktober 2006 (2) indførte ændringer i de forklarende bestemmelser til kapitel 84 i Toldtariffen, II del, i Bilag I (hvormed højttalere er blevet udelukket fra position 8471, såfremt de foreligger særskilt fra automatiske databehandlingsmaskiner), udledes fortolkningsbidrag for at lægge til grund, at de af selskabet ADL s.r.l. (3) (...) indførte varer (...) udfører en selvstændig funktion (lydgengivelse og -forstærkning), »bortset fra« databehandling?
 2)
 Skal de af selskabet ADL s.r.l. (...) indførte varer (...) i sin egenskab af »højttalere«, som markedsføres særskilt fra den automatiske databehandlingsmaskine, opfattes som udstyr, der »udfører en selvstændig funktion, bortset fra databehandling«, — såfremt lydgengivelsen og — forstærkningen skal kvalificeres som en sådan funktion — eller kan de opfattes som anlægsenheder, der ikke udfører en selvstændig funktion, bortset fra databehandling, fordi varerne henset til deres specifikke tekniske kendetegn (tilslutning udelukkende med USB-kabel; behov for operativsystemet MAC OS 9) »ikke udfører en arbejdsfunktion, som de kunne udføre uden brug af en sådan maskine (dvs. en automatisk databehandlingsmaskine)« (jf. Domstolens dom af 19.10.2000, sag C-339/98, Peacock AG, præmis 14 og 15, og af 18.7.2007, sag C-142/06, Olicom, præmis 20, 29 og 30, i henhold til hvilke, selv om disse domme vedrører en anden udstyrstype — netværkskort og kombinerede kort —, varerne ikke har andre selvstændige funktioner »bortset fra (databehandling)«, når to elementer foreligger, navnlig at udstyret udelukkende kan fungere med brug af en pc, og at det er i stand til at modtage og omdanne de signaler, computeren har behandlet, til signaler, som det eksterne miljø kan anvende)?
 (1) Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2658/87 af 23.7.1987 om told- og statistiknomenklaturen og Den Fælles Toldtarif (EFT L 256, s. 1).
 (2) Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1549/2006 af 17.10.2006 om ændring af bilag I til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2658/87 om told- og statistiknomenklaturen og den fælles toldtarif (EUT L 301, s. 1).
 (3) Der er tale om »højttalere fremstillet af det amerikanske selskab Harman Multimedia og bestemt til udelukkende at anvendes som periferiudstyr (udlæseenhed) til »APPLE« computere«.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Issue Date\n December 24 , 2008\n Audit Report Number\n 2009-FW-1003\n\n\n\n\nTO: Justin R. Ormsby\n Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 6APH\n\n\nFROM:\n\n Gerald R. Kirkland\n Regional Inspector General for Audit, Fort Worth Region, 6AGA\n\nSUBJECT: Housing Authority of the City of El Paso, El Paso Texas, Did Not Follow\n Procurement and Other Requirements\n\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n\n What We Audited and Why\n\n Based on a congressional request, we performed an audit of the Housing\n Authority City of El Paso\xe2\x80\x99s (Authority) procurement process and board of\n commissioners (board) activities. Our objectives were to determine whether the\n Authority properly followed procurement requirements and whether the executive\n director was selected in accordance with applicable procedures.\n\n\n What We Found\n The Authority did not follow its procurement policies or the U. S. Department of\n Housing and Urban Development\xe2\x80\x99s (HUD) procurement requirements.\n Specifically, it inappropriately paid more than $700,000 because it did not\n properly administer its procurements. Also, a former board member and a former\n employee created conflicts of interest. Further, the Authority did not establish\n\x0c written procedures for the selection of its executive director, and its board\n members did not always file ethics questionnaires in a timely manner.\n\n What We Recommend\n\n\n Our recommendations include requiring the Authority to\n\n Repay from nonfederal funds $661,5801 to its restricted operating reserve\n for locally owned properties account, $12,697 to HUD, and $31,640 to its\n capital fund account.\n Implement procedures to ensure that it complies with its procurement\n policies and HUD regulations and requirements.\n Ensure that its executive director and its contracting department\n employees attend HUD-approved procurement training.\n Seek filing of ethics questionnaires from all board members in a timely\n manner.\n\n We also recommend that the Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Fort\n Worth, take administrative or other actions regarding the conflicts of interest\n created by a former board vice-chair and a former employee.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and\n provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3.\n Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the\n audit.\n\n Auditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n\n We provided a draft to the Authority on November 18, 2008, and held an exit\n conference on December 3, 2008. The Authority provided written comments on\n December 12, 2008. The complete text of the auditee\xe2\x80\x99s response, along with our\n evaluation of that response, can be found in appendix B of this report. The\n Authority also provided documents as attachments to the response that are not\n included in appendix B but are available upon request.\n\n\n\n\n1\n $647,252 in excess of contract limits, plus $13,717 in ineligible expenses and $611 in late fees.\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objectives 4\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding 1: The Authority Inappropriately Paid More Than $700,000 Because It Did Not 5\n Properly Administer Its Procurements\n Finding 2: A Former Board Vice-Chair and a Former Employee Created Conflicts of 10\n Interest\n Finding 3: The Authority Did Not Have Written Procedures for Selecting its 12\n Executive Directors\n Finding 4: Board Members Did Not Always Complete Ethics Questionnaires in 14\n a Timely Manner\n\nScope and Methodology 15\n\nInternal Controls 16\n\nAppendixes\n A. Schedule of Questioned Costs 17\n B. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 18\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\n\nThe Housing Authority of the City of El Paso (Authority), Texas, was created in February 1938.\nThe Authority\xe2\x80\x99s mission is to provide safe, decent, sanitary housing for assisted families at or\nbelow 80 percent of median income. The Authority owns and operates approximately 6,028\nunits and provides rent subsidies for another 4,000 families through the U. S. Department of\nHousing and Development\xe2\x80\x99s (HUD) Housing Choice Voucher rental assistance programs and\n495 Section 8 new construction units.\n\nThe Authority also provides a variety of other programs, including education, recreation,\nantidrug, job training, small business development, and community organization, that are\ndesigned to help the residents of public housing achieve self-sufficiency and economic\nindependence.\n\nBased on information on the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s Web site, it has a workforce of approximately 488\nregular, temporary, and part-time employees in 18 sections/departments.\n\nThe Authority is located at 5300 East Paisano, El Paso, Texas. An executive director2\nadministers the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s programs and is responsible for its day-to-day operations. The\nexecutive director is overseen by a board of commissioners (board) comprised of five individuals\nappointed by the mayor of the City of El Paso (mayor). On March 14, 2008, the mayor\nappointed several members of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s board including the board chair, who has since\nresigned, and the board vice-chair.\n\nBased on a congressional request, we performed an audit of the Authority. Our objectives were\nto determine whether the Authority properly followed procurement requirements and whether the\nexecutive director was selected in accordance with applicable procedures.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Before the current executive director, the Authority used the title, \xe2\x80\x9cpresident,\xe2\x80\x9d rather than \xe2\x80\x9cexecutive director.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\nFinding 1: The Authority Inappropriately Paid More Than $700,000\n Because It Did Not Properly Administer Its Procurements\nThe Authority did not follow its procurement policies or HUD\xe2\x80\x99s procurement requirements. For\nexample, it exceeded contractual amounts, made ineligible payments, evaluated proposals on\ncriteria not known to all contractors, and used a contractor\xe2\x80\x99s price list as a statement of work.\nThis condition occurred because the Authority did not adequately monitor contracts, abide by its\ncontracting authority, or follow contract award requirements. Further, it lacked the necessary\nexpertise to properly administer its contracting activities. As a result, the Authority\ninappropriately paid $705,9173 from HUD funds.\n\n\n\n The Authority Inappropriately\n Paid More Than $700,000\n\n\n In violation of its procurement policies and HUD requirements, the Authority\n inappropriately paid $859,072, of which $705,917 was from HUD funds. Of the\n 47 contracts reviewed, the Authority did not follow requirements for 19.\n Violations included payments without valid contracts, payments for employees of\n the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s affiliate, duplicate payments, and other ineligible payments.\n Further, in violation of requirements, the Authority modified the scope of several\n contracts after the contracts expired.4 It also did not properly monitor one\n contractor\xe2\x80\x99s work, which resulted in shoddy workmanship. This condition\n occurred because the Authority lacked the expertise or did not understand the\n importance of properly administering contracts.\n\n Inappropriate Payments for a Resident Employee Training Program\n One example of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s violation of contracting requirements involved a\n resident employee training program. Two months after the program began, the\n Authority determined that continuing the program under the contractor would\n result in higher costs than it expected; thus, it terminated the contract. However,\n the Authority did not want to terminate the employee training program, so in\n November 2006, it transferred the costs to an existing temporary services contract\n with a firm that provided temporary employees to the Authority. Although the\n Authority charged the costs of the resident employee training program to the\n temporary services contract, it did not properly increase the contract total or\n revise the contract scope.\n\n\n3\n $661,580 in operating subsidies/rent receipts funds, $12,697 in expired capital grant funds, and $31,640 in\n current capital grant funds.\n4\n HUD Handbook 7460.8, section 1.9.\n\n\n 5\n\x0c Inappropriate Increase in a Contract Amount\n In October 2006, two weeks before a temporary services contract expired, the\n former president increased the contract by $297,231. At the time of the contract\n increase, the president only had authority to approve contract modifications up to\n $25,000 without board approval.5 The contract increase created a cardinal\n change6 to the contract because it increased the cost of the contract by 158\n percent. Later the Authority executed another contract with the contractor\n discussed above. In total, from November 2005 to April 2008, the Authority paid\n $364,561 in excess of contract amounts from operating subsidies/rent receipts\n funds for the temporary services contracts.7\n\n Payments Made after a Contract Expired\n The Authority also paid $11,189 from operating subsidies/rent receipts funds on a\n contract for pager services after the contract expired. The initial contract period\n was from March 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005. The Authority extended the\n contract annually through February 28, 2007. However, it continued to pay the\n contractor through March 2008, one year after the contract expired.\n\n Other Ineligible Payments\n The Authority paid $13,717 from operating subsidies/rent receipts funds under a\n temporary services contract for employees that were employed by its non-HUD\n property or its tax credit property. It also paid $2,296 in duplicate payments to a\n contractor that provided support services to families. Further, without HUD\n approval,8 the Authority paid $611 in late fees.\n\n\n The Authority Did Not Properly\n Evaluate Proposals for One\n Contract\n\n\n Contrary to requirements, for one contract award, the Authority did not properly\n document the files and evaluated proposals using criteria that were not known to\n all bidders. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s risk manager evaluated the proposed fee schedules\n before awarding a contract for indemnity claims. Although the proposal\n submitted by the firm that was awarded the contract included a higher fee for\n indemnity claims than the other proposals, the risk manager determined that the\n higher fee would be offset by a lower annual administration fee. However, the\n contract file did not contain evidence that a comparison of the bids occurred.\n\n\n\n5\n According to a board resolution, the executive director had the authority to authorize expenditures on goods\n and services and enter into contracts valued at up to $25,000 without approval by the board.\n6\n A cardinal contract change is defined as a change that is beyond the scope of the contract.\n7\n The previously discussed addition of the resident employees to the temporary services contract contributed to\n these excess costs.\n8\n HUD Handbook 7460.8, section 3.4.\n\n\n 6\n\x0c In addition, although the statement of work did not include a local preference, a\n letter prepared by the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s risk manager stated that the winning contractor\n \xe2\x80\x9c. . . is the only vendor that submitted a fee schedule that has a local presence\n which would enhance communication and make meeting much easier to organize\n and less costly.\xe2\x80\x9d Procurement requirements9 stated that the evaluation of\n proposals was to be based on the evaluation factors set forth in the request for\n proposal. Factors not specified in the request for proposal were not to be\n considered. Further, the records were required to document the complete history\n of the procurement.10 Also, the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s contracting manual11 states, \xe2\x80\x9cIf non-\n price factors are used, they shall be made known to all those solicited.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Since a local preference was not in the scope of work provided to prospective\n bidders, the Authority should not have used a local preference as a factor in\n awarding the contract.\n\n The Authority Used a\n Contractor\xe2\x80\x99s Price List to\n Develop the Statement of Work\n\n\n On a small contract, the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s public information officer requested\n procurement of a professional photographer to take pictures of Authority events\n on December 16, 2003. The contract was not to exceed $5,000. Before the\n contract was awarded, the public information officer requested that the winning\n contractor be considered \xe2\x80\x9c. . . as this vendor performed work for the Authority\n well in the past.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s contracting department used a price list faxed from the selected\n contractor to establish the scope of work. The contract was a one-year\n firm-fixed-price contract not to exceed $4,995. However, the contract stated: \xe2\x80\x9c. .\n . unless extended/renewed or modified in writing by both parties.\xe2\x80\x9d The contract\n file contained a memorandum, dated April 7, 2005, stating that the contract would\n be extended for 12 months until April 11, 2006. The contract was reawarded to\n the contractor on November 15, 2006, for the period November 22, 2006, through\n November 22, 2007. The Authority renewed the contract again to November 21,\n 2008.\n\n\n\n\n9\n 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 85.36(d)(3).\n10\n 24 CFR 85.36(b)(9).\n11\n The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s procurement manual, D.1.d.\n\n\n 7\n\x0c The Authority Modified\n Contracts after They Expired\n\n The Authority also modified several contracts after the contract terms had expired\n or after the contract amounts had been exceeded. For example, two months after\n a cell phone contract expired, the Authority modified the contract to extend the\n expiration date and increase the contract amount. HUD regulations required that\n changes to contracts occur within the contract scope. Additionally, less than two\n weeks before the expiration of a temporary services contract, the Authority\n increased the contract amount by more than 158 percent to cover contract\n overages as previously discussed.\n\nThe Authority Did Not Oversee\na Sprinkler System Installation\nContract\n\n The Authority did not properly oversee a contract for the installation of a\n sprinkler system. It paid a contractor $29,344 from its capital grant funds to\n install the sprinkler system and connect it to the water supply. However, as\n demonstrated by the following photograph, the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s work was shoddy.\n The picture shows that the water lines for the sprinkler system protruded above\n the ground.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c If the Authority had properly monitored the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s work, it would have\n known that the workmanship was unacceptable. The Authority concluded that it\n would not be cost beneficial to try to correct the work. Thus, the Authority\n unnecessarily spent $29,344. Further, since the system was unusable, the\n Authority\xe2\x80\x99s maintenance staff watered the area with a water hose.\n\n Conclusion\n\n\n\n Because the Authority lacked the necessary expertise to properly administer its\n contracting activities, it inappropriately paid $705,917 from HUD funds. This\n amount included $661,580 in operating subsidies/rent receipts funds and $44,337\n in capital grant funds that should be repaid. Further, payments from capital grant\n funds included $42,04112 paid from grants that are now closed. Thus, the $42,041\n must be repaid to HUD.\n\n Recommendations\n\n\n\n We recommend that the Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Fort\n Worth, require the Authority to\n\n 1A. Repay $661,580 from nonfederal funds to its restricted operating reserve for\n locally owned properties account.\n\n 1B. Repay $12,697 from nonfederal funds to HUD for ineligible payments from\n capital grants that are closed.\n\n 1C. Repay $2,296 from nonfederal funds to its 2006 capital fund grant account.\n\n 1D. Repay $29,344 from nonfederal funds to HUD for unnecessary costs paid\n from capital grants that are closed.\n\n 1E. Implement procedures to ensure that it complies with its procurement\n policies and HUD regulations and requirements.\n\n 1F. Provide HUD-approved procurement training to Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive\n director and its contracting department employees.\n\n\n\n\n12\n $12,697 + $29,344 = $42,041.\n\n\n 9\n\x0cFinding 2: A Former Board Vice-Chair and a Former Employee Created\n Conflicts of Interest\nA former board vice-chair obtained an employment position with New Beginnings of Texas, Inc.\n(New Beginnings), before the owner of New Beginnings received a contract award from the\nAuthority. Also, a former director of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s technical services division accepted an\nemployment position with an Authority contractor after terminating his employment with the\nAuthority. Neither the former board vice-chair nor the former director of technical services\nbelieved they had done anything wrong by accepting the positions. As a result of accepting the\nposition with New Beginnings, the vice-chair created a conflict of interest that violated HUD\nrules. Also, HUD regulations require a one-year moratorium between the employment of an\nAuthority employee actively involved in procurement and the employment of that employee with\na contractor.\n\n\n A Former Board Vice-Chair\n Had a Conflict of Interest\n\n\n A former board vice-chair obtained a paid employment position with New\n Beginnings, a company owned by the president of Aliviane, Inc. (Aliviane). At\n the time the former board vice-chair obtained the position, the owner of New\n Beginnings and president of the nonprofit Aliviane was in the process of\n obtaining a contract to provide services to Authority residents. The former board\n vice-chair did not notify the Authority board of his position with New\n Beginnings. Section 19 of the annual contributions contract and HUD Handbook\n 7460.8 preclude the Authority, its officers, and employees from entering into a\n contract with a real or apparent conflict of interest.\n\n Further, the former board vice-chair pushed for the Authority to award the\n contract noncompetitively to Aliviane because no other vendors in the El Paso\n area provided the parenting services using the Dando de la Familia program that\n Aliviane provided. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s president and its director of public housing\n expressed concern about the services Aliviane wanted to provide because the\n concept was new and experimental. However, in October 2006, the former board\n vice-chair made a motion and voted to award Aliviane a $300,000 contract over\n the objections of Authority staff. In December 2006, he sent a statement of work\n for Alivaine\xe2\x80\x99s contract to the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s legal counsel for review. The Authority\n awarded the contract to Aliviane on May 7, 2007. Between May 2007 and\n February 2008, the Authority paid Aliviane $240,000 for services under this\n contract.\n\n New Beginnings hired the former board vice-chair on April 16, 2007, about three\n weeks before the Authority awarded Aliviane the contract. The employment\n continued until August 8, 2007. New Beginnings paid the former board\n\n\n 10\n\x0c vice-chair $10,407 during the employment period. He repeatedly denied to HUD\n and the Authority that he worked for Aliviane. Finally, during a December 2007\n Authority board meeting, he admitted to his employment with New Beginnings.\n\n On February 19, 2008, Aliviane terminated its contract with the Authority due to\n the \xe2\x80\x9cunforeseen, unexpected, and unusual circumstances\xe2\x80\x9d of a drop in parenting\n session attendance by Authority residents.\n\nA Former Authority Employee\nWorked for an Authority\nContractor\n\n\n A former director of technical services resigned from the Authority and\n immediately began working as an architect for the architecture and engineering\n contractor for the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s HOPE VI project. The former Authority employee\n developed the scope of work and sat on the committee that reviewed and scored\n the contractors\xe2\x80\x99 proposals for architectural and engineering services on the HOPE\n VI project. The acceptance of the position with the architectural and engineering\n contractor violated both the federal conflict-of-interest requirements and the\n HOPE VI grant agreement.\n\n After the Office of Inspector General (OIG) brought this matter to the executive\n director\xe2\x80\x99s attention on May 21, 2008, he requested that the contractor remove the\n former employee from all Authority work.\n\nRecommendation\n\n\n\n We recommend that the Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Fort\n Worth,\n\n 2A. Take administrative or other appropriate actions regarding the former board\n vice-chair and former Authority employee involved in the potential conflicts\n of interest.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cFinding 3: The Authority Did Not Have Written Procedures for\n Selecting an Executive Director\nAlthough the Authority has had eight executive directors/presidents since 2000, it did not have\nwritten procedures governing its selection process. The Authority did not believe it was\nnecessary to have written procedures because its outside legal counsel had used the same\nprocedures for recommending past candidates to the board. Given the recent history of turnover\nof key personnel and questionable activities by some board members, the Authority, as a matter\nof good business practice and to improve transparency in the selection process, should establish\nwritten procedures for selecting key personnel. Without written procedures, the Authority\ncannot ensure that it will consistently apply established procedures.\n\n\n\n The Authority Did Not Have\n Written Procedures Governing\n its Selection Process\n\n\n According to the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s outside legal counsel, the Authority has had eight\n executive directors/presidents since 2000. Despite the frequent turnover of\n executive directors/presidents, the Authority did not have written procedures\n governing its selection process. Rather, at the board\xe2\x80\x99s instruction, its outside legal\n counsel designed and oversaw the search process.\n\n In seeking qualified candidates for the most recent hiring, the Authority used the\n same process that it had used in the past. Its outside legal counsel received the\n applications and determined which candidates were qualified. The board\n members then selected the finalists and interviewed them.\n\n Although the selection of the executive director was placed on the board agenda\n several times in November 2007, without discussion or a vote, the board voted to\n hire the present executive director after the board chair left the November 28,\n 2007, general board meeting. The board chair, knowing that she would not be\n able to attend the entire board meeting, asked that all important matters be moved\n to the beginning of the meeting so that they could be attended to before her\n departure. However, after the board chair left the meeting, the board vice-chair13\n introduced a motion to hire the present executive director. The board did not go\n into executive session to discuss the matter before voting.\n\n Although HUD allowed local governing bodies to determine their criteria for\n selecting an executive director, the Authority should have formalized its process\n by developing written procedures as a matter of good management practices,\n\n13\n The same board vice-chair discussed in finding 2.\n\n\n 12\n\x0c especially given the recent history of turnover of key personnel and questionable\n activities by some board members.\n\nRecommendation\n\n We recommend that the Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Fort\n Worth,\n\n 3A. Require the Authority to develop and implement written procedures for the\n selection of key personnel.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cFinding 4: Board Members Did Not Always Complete Ethics\n Questionnaires in a Timely Manner\nThree former board members and one current board member did not complete their ethics\nquestionnaires in a timely manner. Board members did not understand the importance of the\ntimely completion of the ethics questionnaire, and Authority staff was reluctant to pursue the\nissue with the board members. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s code of ethics required that board members\ncomplete the ethics questionnaire within 30 days of their appointment. As a result of the board\nmembers\xe2\x80\x99 not completing the ethics questionnaire, the Authority could not determine whether\nconflicts of interest existed.\n\n\n Staff Was Reluctant to Push\n Compliance\n\n\n The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s code of ethics for the board stated that within 30 days of\n appointment to the board or taking office, a signed ethics questionnaire was to be\n filed with the executive director. According to Authority staff, although the\n executive director\xe2\x80\x99s office informed board members of their responsibility to\n complete the form, they sometimes did not complete the form in a timely manner.\n Staff members also said that due to their position as staff, they found it difficult to\n push the board to comply. As a result, potential financial or other conflicts of\n interest may have not been readily disclosed.\n\n Recommendation\n\n\n\n We recommend that the Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Fort Worth,\n\n 4A. Require the executive director to obtain the ethics questionnaires from the\n board members.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nOur objectives were to determine whether the Authority properly followed procurement\nrequirements and whether the executive director was selected in accordance with applicable\nprocedures.\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we\n\n Reviewed applicable HUD regulations and the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s procurement manual.\n Reviewed the Authority board minutes and transcripts.\n Reviewed 47 contracts.\n Conducted an impromptu inventory count.\n Attended a bid opening.\n Conducted an impromptu cash count.\n Interviewed the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s current and former employees, former board\n members, and a contractor.\n\nWe conducted our audit from March through September 2008 at the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s office located at\n5300 East Paisano, El Paso, Texas, and our office in Fort Worth, Texas. Our audit period was\nJanuary 2006 to March 2008. We expanded our scope as necessary to accomplish our\nobjectives. We performed our review in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\nbased on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis\nfor our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is an integral component of an organization\xe2\x80\x99s management that provides\nreasonable assurance that the following controls are achieved:\n\n Program operations,\n Relevance and reliability of information,\n Compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and\n Safeguarding of assets and resources.\n\nInternal controls relate to management\xe2\x80\x99s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet its\nmission, goals, and objectives. They include the processes and procedures for planning,\norganizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the systems for measuring,\nreporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objectives:\n\n Compliance with laws and regulations \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that\n management has implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is\n consistent with laws and regulations.\n Safeguarding resources \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that management has\n implemented to reasonably ensure that resources are safeguarded against\n waste, loss, and misuse.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A significant weakness exists if management controls do not provide reasonable\n assurance that the process for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling\n program operations will meet the organization\xe2\x80\x99s objectives.\n\n Significant Weaknesses\n\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following items are significant weaknesses:\n\n Controls over compliance with applicable procurement laws and regulations\n were ineffective.\n Policies and procedures regarding safeguarding of resources were\n ineffective.\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n\n Recommendation Ineligible 1/ Unreasonable/\n number unnecessary2/\n 1A $661,580\n 1B 12,697\n 1C 2,296\n 1D _______ $29,344\n\n Totals $676,573 $29,344\n\n\n\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity\n that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or federal, state, or local\n policies or regulations.\n\n2/ Unreasonable/unnecessary costs are those costs not generally recognized as ordinary,\n prudent, relevant, and/or necessary within established practices. Unreasonable costs\n exceed the costs that would be incurred by a prudent person in conducting a competitive\n business.\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c20\n\x0c21\n\x0cComment 2\n\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c23\n\x0cComment 4\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cComment 5\n\n\nComment 6\n\n\n\n\nComment 7\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0cComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 8\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0cComment 9\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0cComment 10\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0c29\n\x0cComment 10\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 We acknowledge the actions of the present board, including implementing the\n \xe2\x80\x9cBlue Ribbon Committee\xe2\x80\x99s\xe2\x80\x9d recommendations to correct past deficiencies with\n the Authority.\n\nComment 2 As agreed to at the exit conference, we revised the finding heading to include\n procurement administration and changed the term \xe2\x80\x9coverpayment\xe2\x80\x9d to the phrase\n \xe2\x80\x9cpaid in excess of contract terms.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nComment 3 We disagree with the Authority that it simply used the wrong \xe2\x80\x9ccontract vehicle.\xe2\x80\x9d\n The contract that the Authority entered into for temporary services contained a not\n to exceed amount of $115,000.14 The primary purpose of the contract was to\n provide temporary services in the area of administrative, office support, handlers,\n and inspectors. The Authority president modified the contract amount by\n $297,231, or 158 percent, when the Authority expanded the scope to include the\n resident employee trainees. Thus, the Authority exceeded the scope and created a\n cardinal change.15 Further, the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s argument leads to irresponsible\n conclusions that could allow the executive director to enter into a contract of less\n than $25,000 without board consent and then modify the cost and contract scope\n to any extent without board approval. HUD regulations require that any contract\n change order/modification be within the contract scope and a cost or price\n analysis be performed.16 As the Authority did not anticipate the inclusion of the\n resident employee trainees in the original contract, its argument regarding the\n \xe2\x80\x9ccontract vehicle\xe2\x80\x9d appears invalid. We maintain that the Authority paid $297,231\n in excess of the contract terms.17 The Authority should have procured these\n services rather than adding the cost to another contract. We added clarifying\n language to the body of the finding.\n\nComment 4 We appreciate the changes made to prevent future occurrences of this error.\n However, for one year after the pager contract ended, the Authority continued to\n make payments. The Authority should repay to its programs amounts spent in\n excess of contractual amounts.\n\nComment 5 The Authority agreed with the recommendation.\n\n\n14\n The Authority modified this contract on October 20, 2005, to add $65,000, increasing the original contract\n price of $50,000 to $115,000.\n15\n A cardinal contract change is defined as a change that is beyond the scope of the contract.\n16\n 24 CFR 84.36(f).\n17\n Before July 26, 2007, with board resolution 1451, the Authority president did not have the authority to\n approve contracts above $25,000.\n\n\n 31\n\x0cComment 6 We acknowledge the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to improve its contracting department\n and procedures.\n\nComment 7 We considered the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s comments but did not change our conclusions. In\n addition to the conditions cited in the report, an internal electronic message listed\n the photographer as the contractor in the solicitation before being sent to others.\n We maintain our conclusion that the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s action gave the appearance that\n the photographer was preselected.\n\nComment 8 We appreciate the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s willingness to consider \xe2\x80\x9clow-water use\n landscaping\xe2\x80\x9d in its projects and its acknowledgment of lack of workmanship.\n\nComment 9 We included a statement in the body of the finding that the former board member\n admitted to his involvement at a December 2007 board meeting.\n\nComment 10 We disagree with many of the inferences in the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s response. The\n process used to hire the present executive director was also the process used to\n hire previous people to that position. These former presidents were not at the\n Authority for a significant period and were part of the history of turmoil at the\n Authority that necessitated the Blue Ribbon Committee referred to in the\n Authority\xe2\x80\x99s response. We did not conclude whether the current executive director\n was the best candidate or how well he performed. The current executive director\n was not in charge during the majority of our audit scope. Our finding noted the\n process as determined by the various documentation reviewed. We concluded\n that the Authority did not have and was not required to have a written process for\n selecting its key personnel. We recommended that the Authority establish a\n written procedure before selecting key personnel. The Blue Ribbon Committee\n report stated in part:\n\n The committee drafted a template of suggested Standard Operating Procedures for\n use by the Board of Commissioners and made recommendations regarding overall\n governance and operational procedures for use by the Board.\n\n Our finding and recommendation are consistent with this report. The Authority\n should have standard procedures for selecting key personnel.\n\n We revised the finding to stress the importance of written policies and procedures\n as a matter of good business practice to help ensure consistency and improve the\n transparency of the selection.\n\n\n\n 32\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Jihočeská Theléma byl kroužek mladých českých romanistů, kteří se rozhodli přeložit do češtiny jedno ze stěžejních a nejnesnadnějších děl světové literatury, Gargantuu a Pantagruela od Françoise Rabelaise.
 Iniciátorem kroužku byl docent pražské filozofické fakulty Prokop Miroslav Haškovec (1876–1935), později profesor filozofické fakulty v Brně. V roce 1908 uveřejnil článek v České mysli, ve kterém rozebral myšlenku Rabelaisovy Thelémy, což řecky znamená svobodnou vůli. Slavný spisovatel tím myslel společenství svobodných a vzdělaných lidí obojího pohlaví. Ze svých posluchačů pak P. M. Haškovec sestavil v roce 1909 Českou Thelému, jejímiž členy se stali Jan Čart (1885–1943), František Kamarýt (1887–1914), Stanislav Malec (1887–?), Josef Rejlek (1888–1958) a Karel Šafář (1889–1970).
 V letech 1909–1911 překládali první knihu (Gargantuu), a to tak, že každý přeložil několik kapitol, které si pak vzájemně kritizovali a upravovali. Tři veršované kapitoly přebásnil Dr. J. Munk, celkovou redakci provedl J. Rejlek. Kniha vyšla v souvislosti se vznikem nové tiskárny A. Reise na Vyšehradě na jaře v roce 1912.
 Při překladu druhé knihy odstoupili J. Čart a S. Malec a zbývající jihočeští členové (Kamarýt, Rejlek, Šafář) přejmenovali kroužek na Jihočeskou Thelému. F. Kamarýt ve válce padl, proto překlad dokončovali J. Rejlek a K. Šafář. Použili dílčí překlady, které zanechali S. Malec a brněnský student Cyril Vaněk. Část překladu provedl nový člen kroužku Alois Krajíc (1899–1977) a některé verše Miroslav Haller (1901–1968). Redakci celého překladu provedl K. Šafář, který také prosadil překlad poslední páté knihy, kde je Rabelaisovo autorství nejisté, a doplnil knihu spolu s Rejlkem rozsáhlým poznámkovým aparátem. Celá kniha vyšla v roce 1931 a byla velmi kladně přijata (F. X. Šalda, V. Vančura).
 Po válce (1953) překlad revidoval Josef Kopal (1883–1966), který také napsal předmluvu o životě a díle autora, ilustrace Gustava Doré vybrali Václav Vilém Štech (1885–1974) a Jiřina Vydrová. Nové moderní ilustrace ve vydání z roku 1968 jsou dílem Zdenka Seydla (1916–1978).
 Tento kolektivní překlad bývá označován za jeden z největších překladatelských výkonů v českém jazyce, protože překladatelé museli vyřešit stovky slovních hříček a zachovat bohatost i ducha originálu.
 Odkazy
 Reference
 Translatologie