jurisdiction: US

text: b' Office of Inspector General\n Audit Report\n\n\nDOT NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS TRACKING\nAND MONITORING OF ALL SINGLE AUDIT\n FINDINGS IN ORDER TO EFFECTIVELY\n MANAGE GRANTS\n Department of Transportation\n\n Report Number: FI-2012-037\n Date Issued: December 28, 2011\n\x0c U.S. Department of\n Memorandum\n Transportation\n Office of the Secretary\n of Transportation\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\nSubject: ACTION: DOT Needs to Improve Its Tracking Date: December 28, 2011\n and Monitoring of All Single Audit Findings in\n Order to Effectively Manage Grants\n Department of Transportation\n Report Number FI-2012-037\n\n From: Louis King Reply to\n Attn. of: JA-20\n Assistant Inspector General for Financial and\n Information Technology Audits\n\n To: Assistant Secretary for Administration\n\n\n Before 2009, the Department awarded over an average of $50 billion annually in\n grants for transportation related projects. 1 In 2009, the American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided the Department an additional $48 billion for\n such grants. To help ensure the proper use of grant awards, the Single Audit Act of\n 1984, 2 as amended, requires each entity that expends $500,000 or more in Federal\n funds in a fiscal year to obtain an annual \xe2\x80\x9csingle audit.\xe2\x80\x9d This includes an audit of\n the entity\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements and schedule of Federal award expenditures, as\n well as reviews of the entity\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls and compliance with laws and\n regulations. The entities, or grantees, are required to develop corrective action\n plans to address single audit findings. In turn, the Department and its Operating\n Administrations (OA) are responsible for ensuring that grantees complete the\n necessary actions in a timely manner.\n\n Our objectives were to determine if the OAs: (1) issue timely management\n decisions approving grantees\xe2\x80\x99 corrective action plans; (2) ensure that grantees\n promptly implement corrective actions, including recovery of questioned costs;\n and (3) use single audit results to identify grantees that require close monitoring.\n As part of this audit, we reviewed single audit findings, including findings related\n to questioned costs, and findings covering grantees with significant histories of\n findings. We conducted this audit from January 2010 through September 2011 in\n\n 1\n Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for fiscal years 2003 through 2008\n 2\n Pub. L. No. 98-502 (1984) amended by Pub. L. No. 104-156 (1996)\n\x0c 2\n\n\naccordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Our review\nincluded single audit findings issued to DOT\xe2\x80\x99s largest or \xe2\x80\x9ctop 100\xe2\x80\x9d grantees 3 from\n5 OAs. 4 These findings were issued specifically for DOT programs. Exhibit A\ndetails our scope and methodology, including our use of statistical sampling.\n\nBACKGROUND\nRequirements for the single audit process are established by the Office of\nManagement and Budget\xe2\x80\x99s (OMB) Circular A-133, \xe2\x80\x9cAudits of States, Local\nGovernments and Non-Profit Organizations,\xe2\x80\x9d 5 which was issued pursuant to the\nSingle Audit Act amendments. The Circular requires each Federal grantee that\nexpends more than $500,000 in Federal awards in a year to submit a single audit\nreport along with a corrective action plan that addresses each audit finding to the\nFederal Audit Clearinghouse. 6 The Circular requires that each corrective action\nplan include the planned actions, the anticipated completion date, and the person\nresponsible for the action. The awarding agency is required to issue a management\ndecision on the acceptability of the corrective action plan within 6 months of\nreceipt of the report package and to ensure that the grantee takes appropriate and\ntimely corrective actions. The grantee is responsible for completion of the\napproved corrective actions within the established timeframes.\n\nTo facilitate this process, DOT OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Single Audit Program Office (SAPO)\nobtains single audit reports with DOT findings from the Clearinghouse, and\nclassifies the findings into one of two categories\xe2\x80\x94P1 or P2 findings, according to\nSAPO\xe2\x80\x99s criteria. The P1 classification indicates more significant findings 7 or\nquestioned costs exceeding $10,000. The P2 classification indicates that DOT is\nnot the cognizant 8 agency or questioned costs are less than $10,000. Although\nDOT is not the cognizant agency, DOT may be the primary funding agency;\nadditionally, these findings often specifically impact DOT programs. During fiscal\nyears 2006 through 2009, 192 of 384 single audits of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s top\n100 grantees 9 resulted in P1 or P2 single audit findings (see Figure 1).\n\n\n\n3\n Together, the top 100 received $30 billion ARRA funds, as detailed in Exhibit C.\n4\n The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Federal Transit\n Administration (FTA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the National Highway Traffic Safety\n Administration (NHTSA)\n5\n Last revised June 26, 2007\n6\n The Federal Audit Clearinghouse operates on behalf of OMB to assist Federal agencies in obtaining OMB Circular\n A-133 data and reporting packages.\n7\n The criteria for P1 include DOT as the cognizant agency (see footnote 7) for the grantee and a finding related to a\n direct DOT award, or findings related to ARRA funds.\n8\n A cognizant agency, the Federal awarding agency responsible for audit oversight, is designated by the Office of\n Management and Budget for recipients expending more than $50 million per year. The Federal awarding agency\n that provides the recipients\xe2\x80\x99 predominant amount of direct funding receives this designation.\n9\n See Exhibit B for a list of the top 100 grantees.\n\x0c 3\n\n\nFigure 1. Types of Single Audit Memoranda Issued to Top 100\nGrantees, FY 2006 - FY 2009\n\n\n\n\nSource: SAPO memoranda log\n\nDOT Order 4600.17A, Appendix D, \xe2\x80\x9cAudits of Federal Assistance Recipients,\xe2\x80\x9d\nprovided departmental guidance for implementation of Circular A-133. The Order\nexpanded the OAs\xe2\x80\x99 oversight role by stating that each OA must maintain a\nmechanism for recording receipt of grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single audit reports that require\ncorrective actions, and for monitoring the status of each action.\n\nDOT\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Assistance Guidance Manual (FAGM) 10 states that each OA\nshould review its grantees\xe2\x80\x99 schedules of current and prior audit findings and\nidentify any findings related to projects that the OA funds. The OA should monitor\nthese areas closely through desk reviews, site visits, and follow up on corrective\naction plans. When OAs believe that grantees have failed to comply with grant\nterms and conditions, they can take a wide range of actions with recipients of\ncompetitive grants 11 including written alerts to the grantee of possible grant\nsuspension or termination, designation of the grantee as high-risk, and temporary\nwithholding of payments and future awards.\n\nTable 1 provides a summary of the criteria that applies to single audits.\n\n\n\n\n10\n The FAGM is procedural guidance which was issued in March 2009 to replace DOT Order 4600.17A and\n encompasses other DOT policies and procedures.\n11\n Competitive grants are issued at the OA\xe2\x80\x99s discretion. In contrast, award entitlement for formula grants are\n determined by Congress.\n\x0c 4\n\n\nTable 1. Grantee and OA Single Audit Requirements\n OMB Circular DOT Order FAGM\n A-133 4600.17A\n\nGrantee Requirements\nSubmit corrective action plan Yes Yes No\nImplement corrective actions Yes Yes No\nOA Requirements\nIssue management decision (6 months) Yes Yes Yes\nMaintain tracking mechanism No Yes Yes\nClose findings (prompt corrective action) Yes Yes Yes\nUse enforcement measures No No Yes\n\n\nRESULTS IN BRIEF\nOAs issued timely management decisions (within 6 months of receiving the single\naudit report) on proposed corrective action plans for high priority or P1 single\naudit findings. 12 These decisions met OST\xe2\x80\x99s 2009 guidance 13 on expediting of\nactions on P1 findings and monthly reviews of outstanding items. However, OAs\nfrequently issued untimely and incomplete decisions on lower priority P2\nfindings. 14 For example, of the 86 P2 findings\xe2\x80\x99 management decisions that we\nreviewed, 15 one-third were issued after the required 6-month date or not issued at\nall. Additionally, many plans did not have target action dates, identify responsible\nparties, or note the OAs\xe2\x80\x99 agreement or disagreement with the corrective action\nplans. For example, 33 of the 86 P2 findings (38 percent) did not have target\naction dates. These deficiencies occurred because OAs do not exercise sufficient\ncontrols over processing and completing management decisions that comply with\nsingle audit requirements.\n\nOAs frequently did not ensure that grantees had completed planned actions to\naddress P1 and P2 findings in a timely manner. For example, 16 of 69 P1\nfindings\xe2\x80\x94with questioned costs remained open for an average of 20 months.\nFurthermore, OAs had no evidence of actual implementation of action plans for 55\nP2 findings. These issues occurred because OAs do not have policies that (1)\nrequire management to verify that grantees meet target action dates, or (2) identify\nhow untimely actions will be addressed.\n\n12\n P1 indicates high priority compliance, internal control, or questioned cost findings (issued as OIG "action"\n memoranda).\n13\n DOT Memo, \xe2\x80\x9cPolicy and Procedures for Expediting Action on Single Audit Report Recommendations,\xe2\x80\x9d May 1,\n 2009\n14\n P2 indicates lower priority compliance or internal control findings (previously issued as OIG \xe2\x80\x9cinformation\xe2\x80\x9d\n memoranda).\n15\n Eighty-six findings were reviewed from a statistical sample of 37 out of 114 P2 single audit reports issued fiscal\n years 2006 through 2009.\n\x0c 5\n\n\nFinally, we found that four out of the five OAs did not implement effective\nsystems for detecting grantees with numerous or repeated findings. Only FTA had\nestablished a system that allows users to perform searches of grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single audit\nhistories and obtain related documents. Three OAs used systems to monitor their\ngrantees that did not readily identify recurring findings or detail entire single audit\nhistories. OAs also did not take actions to address grantees that had numerous\nfindings or untimely corrective actions. DOT and OA policies and procedures do\nnot establish measures for tracking grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single audit history or the actions to\ntake in cases of grantees with repeated single audit problems.\n\nWe are making a series of recommendations to assist the OAs in improving\ncontrols over the effective use of single audits for overseeing grantees.\n\nOAS ISSUED UNTIMELY AND INCOMPLETE DECISIONS FOR P2\nFINDINGS\nDuring fiscal years 2006 through 2009, OAs issued timely management\ndecisions 16 to approve corrective action plans for 10 17 of the 12 P1 findings (83.3\npercent) reviewed. However, our review of a statistical sample of 86 management\ndecisions for P2 findings revealed that OAs did not issue timely management\ndecisions for 28 of those findings (32.6 percent). OMB Circular A-133 requires\nagencies to render decisions within 6 months of receipt of SAPO\xe2\x80\x99s report\ntransmittal. We estimate that 32.6 percent of P2 findings issued during the review\nperiod did not meet this requirement. 18 Of our sampled items, 28 did not meet this\nrequirement. Specifically, 9 decisions were issued late and 19 were never issued.\nFindings that went unaddressed related to matters such as quality assurance testing\nof construction materials, cash management, and sub-recipient monitoring. Of the\nnine management decisions that were issued late, six were issued over a year after\nSAPO\xe2\x80\x99s report transmittal. For example, SAPO transmitted a report on the City of\nSan Antonio to FAA in December 2008, but FAA did not issue its management\ndecision on the city\xe2\x80\x99s corrective action plan until February 2010, 14 months later.\n\nWe also found 33 instances, or 38 percent, in which corrective action plans did not\ninclude target action dates for completion, and 49 instances, or 57 percent, in\nwhich they did not identify persons responsible for the corrective actions. Circular\nA-133 requires these elements to promote accountability in the resolution of single\naudit findings. For example, in response to a finding that conveyed a need for\nsub-recipient monitoring procedures, the Illinois Department of Transportation\nstated that it was testing a data system, and that once it had completed testing, it\n\n\n16\n OA management is required to respond to OIG on each P1 finding\xe2\x80\x99s resolution and closure.\n17\n We performed preliminary testing on a random sample of 10 out of 174 P1 memos which had 12 P1 findings.\n18\n Based on 90 percent confidence level with a margin of error of +/- 4.2 percentage points.\n\x0c 6\n\n\nwould develop a protocol. However, it did not include a timeline for the protocol\xe2\x80\x99s\ncompletion, or name the person responsible for the corrective action.\n\nWe also found 14 instances in which OAs did not express concurrence or\nnon-concurrence with the corrective actions, as required by OMB A-133. For\nexample, in its decision regarding deficiencies in the Port of Seattle\xe2\x80\x99s real property\nacquisition and relocation assistance, FAA received an update on the internal\ncontrols the Port implemented. However, the FAA official did not state whether or\nnot he agreed with the actions.\n\nOAs do not exercise sufficient controls over processing and completing\nmanagement decisions that comply with single audit requirements.\n\nOAS DID NOT ENSURE THAT GRANTEES FULLY IMPLEMENTED\nCORRECTIVE ACTIONS\nOAs did not follow through with grantees to confirm that the grantees had\nimplemented corrective actions necessary to close P1 and P2 findings. Sixteen\nfindings with $3.7 million in questioned costs remained open for an average of\n20 months after SAPO provided the report to the OA for action. In addition, the\nOAs could not provide evidence that 55 of 86 P2 findings had been corrected.\n\nOAs Did Not Ensure That Grantees Closed All P1 Findings on\nQuestioned Costs in a Timely Manner\nWhile OAs closed 53 P1-related questioned cost findings during fiscal years 2008\nand 2009\xe2\x80\x94totaling $12.3 million\xe2\x80\x9416 findings remained open from fiscal year\n2006 through fiscal year 2009, totaling $3.7 million in questioned costs. At the\ntime of review, the target action dates for all but two findings had already passed.\nThe 16 open findings remained under agency review, in dispute, or awaiting\nrepayment for an average of 20 months past SAPO\xe2\x80\x99s transmittal date. Circular\nA-133 states, \xe2\x80\x9cThe entity responsible for making the management decision shall\ndo so within six months of receipt of the audit report. Corrective action should be\ninitiated within six months after receipt.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOAs frequently spent more than a year reviewing questioned costs to determine\nvalidity. For example, in May 2009, SAPO transmitted a report containing three\nquestioned cost findings totaling $169,000 for the City of Fort Worth, Texas.\nFHWA\xe2\x80\x99s April 2010 management decision set July 2010 as the target action date\nfor resolution. However, in August 2010\xe2\x80\x9415 months after SAPO\xe2\x80\x99s\nP1 memorandum\xe2\x80\x94FHWA determined that no recovery was warranted.\n\x0c 7\n\n\nOAs Did Not Ensure That Grantees Implemented Corrective Actions\nfor P2 Findings\nOAs could not provide evidence that grantees actually implemented corrective\nactions for 55 of the 86 P2 findings (64 percent) in our sample. 19 Our testing\nindicated that OAs performed at least initial follow-ups with grantees but rarely\ndetermined whether the findings could be closed. We estimated that OAs\ndocumented closings for only 36 percent of the P2 findings for the period\nreviewed. 20 In some cases, findings were not closed for over 2 years after SAPO\xe2\x80\x99s\ntransmittal. For example, more than 3 years after receipt of SAPO\xe2\x80\x99s transmittal\ndated January 2007, FTA had not closed a fiscal year 2005 finding on security\ncontrols involving the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority\n(WMATA). Independent auditors cited the same finding for fiscal years 2006,\n2007, and 2008.\n\nAdditionally, OAs did not ensure that grantees met target action dates. Fifty-three\nof the 86 findings had target action dates, but grantees met only 24 of those dates.\nUsing statistical sampling techniques, we estimated that grantees met only\n28 percent of the target action dates set for P2 findings included in our review\nperiod. 21 These issues with P1 questioned costs and P2 findings occurred because\nOAs\xe2\x80\x99 policies and procedures on single audit findings do not clearly outline\nresponsibilities for follow-up on finding closings.\n\nOAs HAVE NOT TAKEN SUFFICIENT ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY OR\nADDRESS GRANTEES WITH PROBLEMATIC FINDING\nHISTORIES\nOf the five OAs reviewed, four did not have adequate systems to monitor single\naudit findings and none were taking actions when grantees had histories of single\naudit findings. These issues occurred largely because of the absence of adequate\nDOT and OA policies and procedures. For example, DOT Order 4600.17A\nrequires OAs to implement and maintain tracking mechanisms for recording audit\nreports and monitoring corrective action status, but does not establish criteria for\ntracking grantees with a history of findings.\n\nOAs also have the authority to take a range of actions when they identify\ndiscretionary grant recipients that accumulate numerous findings or do not\nimplement recommendations. These actions include withholding payments or\nfuture awards, and designating the grantee as high risk to preclude or reduce the\nrisk of payments to grantees that have a history of control deficiencies over\nFederal funds. DOT and OA policies and procedures are inadequate in establishing\n\n19\n Eighty-six findings associated with 37 SAPO transmittals.\n20\n Estimate based on 90 percent confidence level with a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points.\n21\n Estimate based on 90 percent confidence level with a margin of error of +/- 4.0 percentage points.\n\x0c 8\n\n\ncriteria for tracking grantees with a history of findings and prescribing when\nactions are appropriate.\n\nFour OAs\xe2\x80\x99 Systems Did Not Effectively Track Single Audit Histories\nOf the five OAs reviewed, only FTA could track its grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single audit\nhistories. FRA did not have any tracking mechanism, and three OAs\xe2\x80\x94FHWA,\nFAA, and NHTSA\xe2\x80\x94used systems that did not readily identify findings that\nappeared in more than one single audit or detail entire single audit histories. As a\nresult of the absence of adequate tracking mechanisms, reviews of grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single\naudit histories require labor-intensive analyses of multiple spreadsheets. At the\nheadquarters level, these reviews require time-consuming consolidation of\ndecentralized information (see Table 2).\n\nTable 2. OAs\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit Finding Tracking Mechanisms\n FTA FHWA FAA NHTSA FRA\n\nRecording mechanism IT system Spreadsheets Spreadsheets Spreadsheets None\n and emails\n 1 2\nIdentifies open/ closed Yes Yes Yes No N/A\nfinding status\n 2\nConsolidated tracking Yes No No Yes N/A\n(HQ level)\n 2\nGenerates grantee Yes No No No N/A\nfinding history\n1\n FHWA does not update prior-year spreadsheets.\n2\n NHTSA deletes closed findings from its spreadsheet.\n\nFTA\xe2\x80\x99s two systems allow users to perform searches of grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single audit\nhistories and obtain related documents. FTA uses the information from these two\nsystems in its assessments of grantees\xe2\x80\x99 risk levels. A grantee\xe2\x80\x99s formulated risk\ndetermines the level of oversight FTA will apply. However, the other OAs\xe2\x80\x99\ntracking mechanisms were ineffective in tracking single audit histories. For\nexample:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 FHWA\xe2\x80\x99s headquarters financial management office collected spreadsheets\n from State divisional offices, but the spreadsheets were not consolidated to\n enable analyses of grantees\xe2\x80\x99 finding histories.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 FAA\xe2\x80\x99s spreadsheets were decentralized and maintained at the regional level.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NHTSA\xe2\x80\x99s audit liaison uses a consolidated spreadsheet to track open P1\n findings at the headquarters level. However, after findings are closed, the\n\x0c 9\n\n\n liaison deletes them from the spreadsheet. He tracks P2 findings using\n email traffic. Neither method provides an ongoing history of audit findings.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 FRA does not have written procedures or mechanisms in place that address the\n single audit process. FRA\xe2\x80\x99s chief accountant stated that they had not received\n any single audit memos to date; however, he informed us that the Agency is\n developing the necessary procedures.\n\nOAs Did Not Take Actions against Problem Grantees\nWe found no evidence that OAs use their authority to take actions when:\n(1) grantees have significant P1 finding histories, 22 and (2) grantees do not\npromptly implement corrective actions pertaining to P2 findings.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 P1 Findings: Of the top 100 grantees, we identified 10 with significant\n histories at FHWA, FTA and FAA collectively. These OAs took no\n enforcement actions when grantees had significant histories of questioned costs\n and/or non-compliance issues. 23 For example, one FHWA grantee, the State of\n Hawaii, had 12 findings during our review period. These findings covered\n various issues, including failure to verify that contractors had not been\n suspended or debarred from Federal procurement, and failure to perform the\n required monitoring of sub-awardees. FHWA informed us that prior to August\n 2010, it had not considered single audit findings material and/or systemic\n enough in nature to warrant the designation of a grantee as high-risk. FHWA\n also stated that it does not withhold Federal-aid Highway Funds from grantees\n solely on the basis of single audit findings. While we acknowledge that single\n audit findings are among several mechanisms available for grant oversight, we\n believe this measure should be considered when rapid correction is needed.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 P2 Findings: FHWA and FTA also took no actions when grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single\n audits detected the same P2 findings year after year. The repeated findings\n covered matters such as deficient payroll records 24 and inadequate security\n controls. For example, the State of Oklahoma had a finding on payroll issues\n for 3 years. In another example, for several years, the independent auditors\n repeatedly issued findings for WMATA\xe2\x80\x99s inadequate facility security controls\n for proper safeguarding of Federally-funded equipment. However, neither\n FHWA nor FTA indicated that they took any action in these cases.\n\n\n\n\n22\n We defined \xe2\x80\x9csignificant history\xe2\x80\x9d as six or more P1 findings from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009. Since no\n FAA grantees met these criteria, we reviewed Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport Authority which had five findings.\n23\n FTA followed up with its grantees through phone calls and electronic mails.\n24\n Deficient payroll records include violations of the Davis-Bacon Act which requires all contractors and subcontractors\n performing work on Federally funded construction contracts to pay prevailing wage rates.\n\x0c 10\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nIt is imperative that DOT use every tool available to improve its oversight of over\n$50 billion in grants that it awards annually, particularly in an environment of\nincreasingly scarce resources. Single audits are valuable tools that can be used to\nprotect Federal grants and American taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 dollars. OAs have taken advantage\nof single audits to issue timely decisions for P1 findings. However, for this tool to\nbe effective, agencies must better track its grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single audit findings, monitor\nthe severity and frequency of such findings, oversee the grantees\xe2\x80\x99 timely\nimplementation of corrective action plans, and take suitable actions against\ngrantees with histories of poor grant management. Without these measures fully in\nplace, DOT and its OAs cannot effectively prevent grant funds from landing in the\nwrong hands, or from being subject to fraud, theft, and abuse.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Administration update its\nprocedures to ensure prompt resolution of all Priority 1 and Priority 2 single audit\nfindings by:\n\n1. Requiring OAs to use management decisions that clearly communicate the\n expectations and timetables for corrective actions in accordance with Circular\n A-133. Priority 2 management decisions should incorporate the same checklist\n currently in use for Priority 1 findings.\n\n2. Requiring OAs to record and monitor their grantees\xe2\x80\x99 target action dates and to\n prepare a closeout document when the actions are complete.\n\n3. Requiring OAs to ensure timely recovery of questioned costs by setting target\n completion dates for reviews and possible cost recovery in accordance with\n Circular A-133.\n\n4. Establishing best practices for audit finding monitoring systems. At a\n minimum, OST should establish additional guidance on monitoring systems,\n including capabilities for identifying high-risk grantees based on past-due\n findings and overall finding histories.\n\n5. Establishing guidelines for when enforcement actions should be taken if\n grantees fail to comply with grant awards and conditions. These guidelines\n should address timelines and severity of the issue.\n\x0c 11\n\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\nRESPONSE\nWe provided OST with our draft report on September 13, 2011, and received its\nresponse on November 1, 2011. OST\xe2\x80\x99s response is included in its entirety as an\nAppendix to this report. OST concurred with recommendation 3, and partially\nconcurred with recommendations, 1, 2, 4, and 5, but provided acceptable\nalternative actions. OST indicated that these single audit issues would be explored\nduring the December Team of Transportation Audit Liaisons (TOTAL) meeting,\nand best practices would be disseminated via a guidance memorandum to be\nissued by January 30, 2012. We consider OST\xe2\x80\x99s planned actions and timeframes to\naddress all five recommendations sufficient, and therefore, consider these\nrecommendations resolved but open pending completion of the planned actions.\n\nWhile we believe OST\xe2\x80\x99s actions satisfy the intent of our recommendations, we are\nconcerned with the Department\xe2\x80\x99s characterization of the importance of single\naudits in general. DOT\xe2\x80\x99s management describes single audit quality concerns and\nstates that such audits are \xe2\x80\x9cat best a starting point for further consideration.\xe2\x80\x9d On\nthe other hand, GAO states that \xe2\x80\x9cbecause single audits represent the Federal\nGovernment\xe2\x80\x99s primary accountability tool over billions of dollars each year in\nFederal funds provided to State and local governments and nonprofit\norganizations, it is important that these audits are carried out efficiently and\neffectively.\xe2\x80\x9d Because we recognized concerns over the quality of single audits, we\nhave devoted resources to conduct approximately a dozen annual quality control\nreviews. While quality can be improved, single audits remain a cornerstone tool.\n\nWe are also concerned with DOT management\xe2\x80\x99s analysis and conclusions. For\nexample, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s comments downplay the 12 findings pertaining to the\nState of Hawaii. Both DOT and FHWA\xe2\x80\x99s management believe that these findings\nwere simply \xe2\x80\x9cprocedural\xe2\x80\x9d in nature. As noted in our report, these findings included\nfailures to verify that contractors had not been suspended or debarred from Federal\nprocurement, and failures to perform the required monitoring of sub-awardees.\nThese are critical deficiencies as are others noted in our report.\n\x0c 12\n\n\nACTIONS REQUIRED\n\nBased on OST\xe2\x80\x99s response, we consider the recommendations in this report\nresolved, but open pending completion of OST\xe2\x80\x99s planned actions.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of Department of Transportation\nrepresentatives during this audit. If you have any questions concerning this report,\nplease call me at (202) 366-1407, or Earl Hedges, Program Director, at\n(410) 962-1729.\n\n #\n\ncc: Martin Gertel, M-1\n Audit Liaison, FHWA\n Audit Liaison, FAA\n Audit Liaison, FTA\n Audit Liaison, FRA\n Audit Liaison, NHTSA\n\x0c 13\n\n\n\nEXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\nWe conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to\nobtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our\nfindings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the\nevidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions.\n\nWe interviewed OA representatives and the Director of OST\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Audit\nRelations. To gain an understanding of OAs\xe2\x80\x99 single audit resolution processes, we\nperformed walk-throughs of the procedures at FHWA, FAA, and FTA. For FRA\nand NHTSA, we used written questionnaires to determine the processes used. We\nanalyzed OAs\xe2\x80\x99 systems for recording grantees\xe2\x80\x99 single audit histories, and their\nmethods for identifying grantees with repeated non-compliances. We considered\nareas of possible fraud and requested auditees to advise us of any fraud-related\nissues.\n\nAs part of our testing, we identified 174 Priority 1 memoranda between fiscal year\n2006 through 2009. Of these, we reviewed 54 memoranda with questioned costs\nfindings\xe2\x80\x9442 memoranda with 53 closed findings and 12 memoranda with 16\nopen findings. We also identified ten grantees that had six or more findings which\nwe deemed significant. For these ten grantees, we tested all 27 Priority 1\nmemoranda which included 84 findings.\n\nWe used statistical sampling to test OAs\xe2\x80\x99 management decisions and follow-up on\nPriority 2 findings. This technique involves the random selection of a number of\nitems for testing. Each item must have a measurable chance of being selected. By\nusing statistical sampling, auditors avoid having to review an entire population of\ntransactions or artifacts without sacrificing the ability to reach conclusions that\napply to the population. Because the sample is random and unbiased, auditors are\nable to project the results of the sample to the population with a predictable degree\nof accuracy and reliability. Major accountancy bodies, including the Government\nAccountability Office, encourage or endorse the use of statistical sampling.\n\nOur population included all Priority 2 memoranda issued to DOT\xe2\x80\x99s top\n100 grantees. 25 From fiscal year 2006 through 2009, the single audits resulted in\n114 Priority 2 memoranda. We selected a statistical sample of 37 of 114 Priority 2\nmemoranda. These 37 Priority 2 memos had 86 DOT-specific findings. The\nsampling allowed us to estimate the percentage of DOT-specific findings that had\nactions taken with 90 percent confidence and +/- 4 percent precision for the\n96 grant recipients in our universe.\n\n25\n The top 100 are based on a 2008 OIG analysis that identified 96 grant recipients that received more than 80 percent\n of DOT awards. These grantees are listed in Exhibit B.\n\n\nEXHI BI T A. SCOPE AND METHODOLO GY\n\x0c 14\n\n\n\nEXHIBIT B. DOT\xe2\x80\x99S TOP 100 GRANTEES\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of expenditures in fiscal year 2008 revealed that 96 of DOT\xe2\x80\x99s\n2,500 grantees\xe2\x80\x94the grantees that received the most funds, or the \xe2\x80\x9ctop 100\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x94\nreceived over 80 percent of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s grant awards. They also received\n$30 billion of the $37 billion in ARRA funds awarded as of September 30, 2010.\n\nTable 3. Top 100 DOT Grantees by Operating Administration\nGrantee 2008 Award\nFederal Highway Administration\nState of California $ 2,814,265,826\n 1\nState of Texas 2,635,031,749\nState of Georgia/State Accounting Office 2,299,714,217\n 1\nMichigan Department of Transportation 2,267,670,000\nState of Florida 2,065,662,526\nNew York State 1,624,760,000\nCommonwealth of Pennsylvania 1,348,910,000\n 1\nState of Illinois Governor\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Management and Budget 1,320,336,000\nState of Ohio 1,081,860,630\n 1\nState of Missouri 927,029,135\n 1,2\nState of Minnesota 880,477,314\nState of North Carolina 853,575,132\nDepartment of Accounts - Commonwealth of Virginia 849,912,840\nState of New Jersey 825,761,809\nState of Louisiana 742,722,490\nState of Alabama 733,988,292\n 1\nState of Wisconsin 720,462,394\nState of Washington C/O Office of Financial Management 715,630,964\n 2\nState of Maryland 708,977,559\nState of Indiana 705,763,352\nCommonwealth of Kentucky 698,762,091\nState of Mississippi 695,476,333\nState of Tennessee 644,116,535\nState of Oklahoma 623,567,696\nState of Arizona 552,154,453\n 1\nState of Alaska 513,903,766\n 1\nState of North Dakota 473,564,204\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts 464,654,522\n\n\n\n\nEXHI BI T B. DO T\'S TOP 100 GR AN TEES\n\x0c 15\n\n\nGrantee 2008 Award\n 2\nState of Connecticut 463,041,136\nState of Colorado 447,860,135\nState of Oregon 430,965,012\nState of Kansas 417,759,990\nState of Arkansas 400,650,404\nSouth Carolina Department of Transportation 371,197,237\nState of West Virginia 317,961,748\nState of Idaho C/O Office of State Controller 311,714,513\nState of Iowa 298,744,081\nState of Utah 294,355,178\nState of Nebraska 260,763,487\nNew Mexico Department of Transportation 260,339,772\nState of Nevada 230,046,559\n 1\nState of South Dakota 211,025,525\nState of Hawaii, Dept. of Transportation, Hawaii Division 192,339,528\nWyoming Department of Transportation 189,352,921\nState of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 179,964,431\nState of New Hampshire 158,324,890\nState of Maine 144,876,581\nState of Vermont 143,806,652\nState of Delaware 133,244,445\nPuerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority 129,055,370\nState of Wyoming 119,893\nFederal Transit Administration\nMetropolitan Transportation Authority 1,577,145,284\nNew Jersey Transit Corporation 771,292,003\nChicago Transit Authority 367,196,976\n 1\nThe Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 300,581,197\nSoutheastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 284,501,000\nMassachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 273,773,869\nLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 251,694,089\nWashington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 231,359,612\n 1\nCity of Phoenix, Arizona 191,729,226\nDallas Area Rapid Transit 170,052,146\nTri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 169,581,953\nCentral Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 159,461,254\nMilwaukee County 137,044,973\n\n\n\nEXHI BI T B. DO T\'S TOP 100 GR AN TEES\n\x0c 16\n\n\nGrantee 2008 Award\nValley Metro Rail, Inc. 130,496,339\nMetropolitan Council 111,004,601\nUtah Transit Authority 110,182,298\nPort Authority of Allegheny County 107,432,455\n 1\nCity and County of San Francisco 102,973,456\nMetropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 99,926,242\nMETRA 98,677,859\nOrange County Transportation Authority 96,759,533\nCity of Charlotte 87,087,447\nKing County 86,544,156\nRegional Transportation District 85,801,553\nMiami-Dade Transit 85,497,691\nGreater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 83,640,189\nMetropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, TX 76,164,000\nFederal Aviation Administration\nState of Hawaii Department of Transportation-Airports Division 53,270,351\nCity of Atlanta 51,096,059\nMetropolitan Washington Airports Authority 46,759,878\nPort of Seattle 37,184,650\nGulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport Authority 37,126,966\nCity of Inglewood 33,398,773\nWayne County Airport Authority 31,890,569\nCity of Saint Louis, Missouri 31,780,666\nDallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board 31,673,483\nCity of Philadelphia 31,659,760\nLos Angeles World Airports 29,638,632\nPanama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial District 29,601,099\nPort of Oakland 26,657,328\nCincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 25,398,744\nAntonio B. Won Pat International Airport Authority, Guam 24,287,787\nMemphis-Shelby County Airport Authority 23,888,000\nCity of San Antonio 20,961,038\nCity of Kansas City, Missouri 20,774,827\nTotal $43,610,871,328\n1\n Grantee was also a top 100 recipient for FAA\n2\n Grantee was also a top 100 recipient for FTA\nSource: SAPO\n\n\n\n\nEXHI BI T B. DO T\'S TOP 100 GR AN TEES\n\x0c 17\n\n\nEXHIBIT C. TOP 100 GRANTEES FOR ARRA AWARDS\n\n\nTable 4: ARRA Awards, as of September 30, 2010, by Operating\nAdministration\n Top 100 Grantees\xe2\x80\x99\nOA ARRA Awards Total ARRA Awards Percentage\nFHWA $ 25,982,405,444 $ 27,008,851,994 96%\nFTA 4,052,472,810 8,778,730,416 46%\nFAA 301,939,124 1,097,622,933 28%\nTotals $30,336,817,378 $36,903,955,343 82%\n\nSource: Compiled by OIG from OA data on www.dot.gov/recovery\n\n\nTable 5: Grantees Who Received Highest ARRA Awards, as of\nSeptember 30, 2010, by Operating Administration\nGrantee ARRA Award\n ($ in millions)\nFHWA\nCalifornia $2,542\nTexas 2,240\nFlorida 1,347\nPennsylvania 1,029\nNew York 951\nIllinois 937\nOhio 920\nGeorgia 903\nMichigan 856\nNorth Carolina 730\nFTA\nNew Jersey Transit Corporation $423\nLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 312\nMassachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 274\nChicago Transit Authority 242\nWashington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 202\nSoutheastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 191\nConnecticut Department of Transportation 156\nMaryland Transit Administration 152\nCommuter Rail Division of Regional Transportation Authority (METRA) 141\n\n\n\nEXHI BI T C. TOP 100 GR ANTEES FOR ARR A AW ARDS\n\x0c 18\n\n\nDallas Area Rapid Transit 140\nFAA\nState of Alaska $74\nPort Authority of New York and New Jersey 20\nState of Texas 18\nCity of Atlanta 15\nMaryland DOT and Maryland Aviation Administration 15\nState of Hawaii-Department of Transportation-Airports Division 15\nWayne County Airport Authority 15\nMetropolitan Washington Airports Authority 15\nPort of Oakland 15\nCity and County of San Francisco 15\n\nSource: Compiled by OIG from OA data on www.dot.gov/recovery\n\n\n\n\nEXHI BI T C. TOP 100 GR ANTEES FOR ARR A AW ARDS\n\x0c 19\n\n\n\nEXHIBIT D. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT\n\n\nName Title\n\nEarl C. Hedges Program Director\n\nIngrid R. Harris Project Manager\n\nMarguerite Nealon Senior Auditor\n\nLaKarla Lindsay Senior Auditor\n\nT. Wayne Summers Auditor\n\nGina Sammons Auditor\n\nPetra Swartzlander Senior Statistician\n\nJohn Sysak OIG National Single Audit Coordinator\n\nSusan Neill Writer-Editor\n\n\n\n\nEXHI BI T D. M AJOR CONTRI BUTO RS TO THI S REPORT\n\x0c 20\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\nDOT Oversight Processes and Performance Metrics for Single Audits are\nEffective\n\nBased on a programmatic analysis completed in 2008 and in consultation with the\noperating administrations and the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Office of\nthe Secretary completely revamped the processes for managing, addressing and\ntracking actions taken on single audit report recommendations. While the\nmanagement processes are not described in the OIG report, they have produced\nenormous benefits. The Department of Transportation (DOT) now has strong,\nconsistent and effective processes for managing single audit recommendations and\nhas demonstrated results to match. DOT is unique among Federal agencies in its\nrelationship and interaction with the OIG in the area of single audits. The DOT\nOIG plays a far more substantial role in this Department\'s single audit process than\nany other in the Federal government. We believe that this role has benefitted the\nDepartment over the years and can be built upon to further strengthen both the\nprocess and overall grant oversight. As discussed in the report, single audit\nfindings are classified by OIG into one of two categories-priority 1 (P1) or priority\n2 (P2) findings. The P1 classification indicates more significant findings or\nquestioned costs exceeding $10,000. The lower priority P2 classification indicates\n\n\nAppendix. Agency Comments\n\x0c 21\n\n\nthat DOT is not the cognizant agency, questioned costs are less than $10,000, or\nfindings are procedural. The OIG report devotes inordinate attention to the P2\nsingle audits even though it has long recognized the limitations of these reviews in\nterms of programmatic significance and considerable quality concerns.\n\nDOT Single Audit Actions Demonstrate Results\n\nDuring the current calendar year, DOT is on track for resolving and closing\nanother record number of single audit recommendations. Based on the results of\nan internal review in 2008, we identified and implemented new metrics for\nmanaging single audits and new systems and processes for handling and\naddressing single audit recommendations.\n\nRecord Number of Single Audit Recommendations Closed\n\nThe Department implemented systematic monthly metrics tracking the status of\nmanagement action for single audit recommendations which provide unequivocal\nperformance measures. Specifically, in order to evaluate progress, we began\ntracking and disseminating metrics describing activity on single audits in monthly\nRecommendation Action Tracking System (RATS) reports. In 2009, we closed\n(final action complete) 107 single audit recommendations. In 2010, results\nincreased by 56 percent to 167 recommendations closed in the calendar year.\nDuring the current year, our results through the end of September show continued\nimprovement and are up about another 40 percent compared to this point in the\nprior year. In addition to improved tracking, the Department has completely\nrevised the process used to address single audit recommendations.\n\nProcess Improvements Provide Comprehensive and Consistent Oversight\n\nSingle audit recommendations receive focused management attention within the\nstructure of consistent processes and effective tracking. With the process\nimprovements implemented in 2009, single audits are now efficiently distributed\nto field and headquarters officials, are tracked at least monthly, receive prompt\nmanagement attention, and are resolved timely. There are clear expectations and\nprocesses for resolving single audit recommendations within 60 days. OST\nworked jointly with the operating administrations and the OIG to design these\nstandardized processes for responding to single audit recommendations at both the\nresolution and final action stages. These processes have been fully implemented\nand are demonstrating results. As of September, despite a massive influx of single\naudit recommendations relating to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act\nof 2009 (Recovery Act), 83 percent were resolved. Furthermore, of the 17 percent\nunresolved, almost all of these were newly received, with only 10\nrecommendations, or 4 percent of the total, pending unresolved for more than 60\ndays. These extraordinary results are due to responsive management attention,\n\n\nAppendix. Agency Comments\n\x0c 22\n\n\nmeaningful performance metrics, and strong systems that provide consistent and\ntimely results.\n\nUnique Relationship with OIG on Single Audits Offers Benefits and Risks\n\nThe Department is unique among Federal agencies in benefitting from the OIG\'s\ndirect hands-on participation in the single audit process. As a result, DOT\nmaintains perhaps the most effective and credible single audit process throughout\ngovernment. In order to help ensure that single audits are received, sorted and\ndistributed appropriately, OIG downloads reports from the Federal Audit\nClearinghouse and classifies reports as P1 or P2. The OIG also tracks and verifies\nthe adequacy of management\'s efforts to ensure that actions taken are complete\nand appropriately documented. To the benefit of the Department\'s credibility with\nregard to action taken to address single audit findings, OIG reviews the\ninformation submitted and closes only those that are clearly and sufficiently\ndocumented. Each of these functions is extremely useful and valuable, but each\nalso introduces risk.\n\nAlong with the strengths offered by this unique relationship, there are also risks\nthat require strong communication and coordination to mitigate. For example,\nup until recently, P2 audits were distributed by OIG under the heading of\n"information," which offered the potential for confusion as to the expectations\nfor management action. We worked with OIG to clarify the distribution\nlanguage for these reviews to ensure expectations were clarified. More recently,\nthe OIG, which screens single audits to determine whether they should be P1 or\nP2, implemented a unilateral revision to the criteria that nearly doubled the\nnumber of P1 recommendations pending. While the change was based on the\ngood intention of fully tracking recommendations relating to Recovery Act\nfunds, it resulted in numerous low priority, process-oriented recommendations\nbeing tracked as top priority, diverting management and OIG attention.\nOutcomes could have been improved through better coordination and\nconsultation among all participants in the process. Finally, achieving timely\naction on OIG audit recommendations also means that it is critical for OIG to\nmaintain adequate resources devoted to both identification of audits,\nprioritization, distribution, tracking and especially close-out. We have been\npleased to see additional OIG resources now available for single audit review\nand closeout.\n\nWidespread Quality and Reliability Issues with Single Audits\n\nWhile management recognizes its responsibilities with regard to all single audits,\nbefore establishing additional requirements, as suggested in the report, particularly\nwith regard to the lower priority P2 audits, it is important to recognize some\ncontext relating to the reliability of these reviews. Single audits are not conducted\n\nAppendix. Agency Comments\n\x0c 23\n\n\nby government entities such as the Office of Inspector General, but are obtained\ndirectly by grantees and performed by private accounting firms. Concerns about\nthe quality of single audits have been documented over the years both by the\nGovernment Accountability Office and Inspectors General. In 2007, the\nPresident\'s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PC IE) conducted a national\nreview of single audits and highlighted significant concerns with single audit\nquality. 1 Specifically, it found that more than one third of single audits conducted\nby accounting firms for larger entities had significant deficiencies, were of limited\nreliability, or they were completely unacceptable. More significantly, PCIE found\nonly 48 percent of single audits conducted for smaller entities were acceptable and\ncould be relied upon with the remaining 52 percent either unacceptable or of\nlimited reliability. The types of problems identified ranged from inadequate testing\nto a lack of information necessary to support the validity of the report\'s findings.\nWhile the stratification employed in the PCIE study is not identical to the PIIP2\napproach used by the OIG, the issues with single audits in general, and especially\nwith the smaller entity stratum, raise a cautionary note that must be considered\nbefore expanding their use, such as using them as a basis for enforcement actions,\nas advocated in the OIG report.\n\nSingle Audits are One of Many Tools Used for Grant Oversight\n\nEach operating administration has tailored its grant oversight programs to provide\nactive and effective oversight of grantees. These include Triennial Reviews of\ngrantees in FTA, intensive management reviews by NHTSA, and the Financial\nIntegrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) program in FHWA. These oversight\nprograms provide more detailed and comprehensive information regarding\ngrantees, their use and management of Federal funds relating to DOT programs,\nand remedial actions necessary than single audits. As a result, it is critical that the\nOIG report present perspective on the role that single audits play in overall\ngrantee oversight. As currently structured, the reader might believe that single\naudits provide the sole tool for grant management.\n\nAdditional oversight conducted under these programs is vital in light of the fact\nthat single audits may produce information that is not completely reliable. These\nissues go beyond the general concerns discussed above. Within the sample group\nused by OIG for this report, fully 39 percent of the P1 recommendations that\nincluded questioned costs were found to have significant errors upon\nmanagement\'s further review and action, and no recovery was necessary. Further,\neven in the remaining questioned cost recommendations where recoveries were\naccomplished, on average, it was only necessary to recover 52 percent of the\nquestioned amount. OIG was in agreement with all of these actions and closed the\n\n1\n "Report on National Single Audit Sampling Project," President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Executive\n Council on Integrity and Efficiency, June 2007.\n\n\nAppendix. Agency Comments\n\x0c 24\n\n\nrecommendations. These variations raise further questions about the utility of\nsingle audit findings for grant management decision making, when considered\nwithout the greater context of overall oversight tools.\n\nFinally, the level of information provided from single audits is at best a starting\npoint for further consideration, and is not a sole, decisive factor in designating a\ngrantee as high risk or for determining whether enforcement actions, such as\nwithholding Federal funds, should be taken. For example, the OIG report cites the\nState of Hawaii, which had 12 findings during its study period. The report offers\nthat these findings should have been used to "take action" with regard to the\ngrantee. However, the report does not mention that all twelve of the single audit\nfindings involved procedural issues and there were no questioned costs associated\nwith any of these findings. Further, the 12 findings fell into different categories,\ndid not exhibit trends, and were all closed. Given data collected through its robust\nFIRE oversight program and corporate risk assessment process, among other\noversight tools used, FHWA maintains its position that these 12 procedural single\naudit findings did not demonstrate material or systemic weaknesses that alone\nwarranted consideration of high risk designation. Enforcement actions, such as\nwithholding Federal funds, are a serious matter that require detailed consideration\nbeyond that available in single audits.\n\nIn summary, there is much about this OIG draft report with which we do not\nagree. This includes its broad statements of causality without apparent support and\nallegations of insufficient action based on inaccurate or outdated information. We\ndisagree with the undue emphasis placed on low priority, procedural findings from\nreports where the Department is frequently not the cognizant entity. We do not\nagree with the absence of any recognition of the comprehensive and the significant\nchanges the Department has already fully implemented for the single audit\nprocess, and the results they have achieved. We do agree that single audits, despite\ntheir associated issues, do provide one useful tool for grant management. The\nDepartment has demonstrated its commitment to optimizing the use of single\naudits as one of its management tools and will continue to apply innovative\nsolutions making the best possible use of single audits and other oversight tools.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix. Agency Comments\n\x0c 25\n\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSE\n\nRecommendation 1: Require operating administrations to use management\ndecisions that clearly communicate the expectations and timetables for corrective\nactions in accordance with Circular A-133. Priority 2 management decisions\nshould incorporate the same checklist currently in use for Priority 1 findings.\n\nResponse: Concur in part. We agree that management decisions for single audit\nfindings, to the extent that the agency is cognizant, should include clear\nexpectations for actions and milestones. These expectations are unequivocal with\nregard to P1 single audit recommendations, thanks to the process and oversight\nchanges that have already been implemented. However it is not clear that the\nformat used for management action would be appropriate for P2 recommendations\nas modification would be required to the reporting requirements elements. This\nissue will be explored during the December Team of Transportation Audit\nLiaisons (TOTAL) meeting. Best practices for P2 recommendation management\nwill be identified and disseminated among the operating administrations.\nFinally, expectations will be reemphasized via guidance memorandum expected to\nbe issued prior to January 30, 2012.\n\nRecommendation 2: Require operating administrations to record and monitor\ntheir grantees\' target action dates and to prepare a closeout document when the\nactions are complete.\n\nResponse: Concur in part. We agree that actions taken by the grantee to fulfill\nthe intent of recommendations for which DOT is the cognizant entity, should be\ndocumented in the files, along with target action dates. Based on processes and\noversight applied for P1 recommendations, this should already be occurring. Since\nthe Department may not be the cognizant entity for all P2 recommendations, it\nwould only be constructive to focus on those single audit recommendations that\npertain directly to the Department. We will explore the potential for ensuring that\nfiles are notated with regard to cognizance, and that those recommendations\npertaining to the Department include information in the file relating to milestones\nand actions taken. These expectations will be reinforced via the guidance\nmemorandum expected to be issued prior to January 30, 2012.\n\nRecommendation 3: Require operating administrations to ensure timely recovery\nof questioned costs by setting target completion dates for reviews and possible\ncost recovery in accordance with Circular A-133.\n\nResponse: Concur. The Department issues timely resolution of single audit\nfindings and works to ensure actions are completed as expeditiously as possible, in\nlight of the complexity of the actions involved and in compliance with A-133. All\nP1 single audit recommendations are promptly resolved and tracked with specific\n\nAppendix. Agency Comments\n\x0c 26\n\n\nmilestones. P2 single audit recommendations where DOT is the cognizant entity\nare also handled as appropriate. The Department will reinforce its expectations for\ncompliance with OMB Circular A-133 for all single audits as appropriate in the\nmemorandum to be issued prior to January 30, 2012.\n\nRecommendation 4: Establish best practices for audit finding monitoring\nsystems. At a minimum, OST should establish additional guidance on monitoring\nsystems, including capabilities for identifying high-risk grantees based on past-due\nfindings and overall finding histories.\n\nResponse: Concur in part. Operating administrations have unique program\ncriteria as defined in law and therefore maintain their own tracking systems as\nnecessary to suit their specific program requirements. It remains their prerogative\nto ensure that the systems employed meet their specific grant management\noversight needs. For example, FT A and FHW A already maintain systems that\ninclude detailed tracking information for single audits. Using PTA as an example,\nit tracks single audit findings within the context of its comprehensive oversight\ntracking system, and we do not envision a circumstance, based on available\ninformation, where OST would provide guidance that might contradict tracking in\nthis effective and well established system. Further, some operating administrations\ndo comparatively less grant-making, are rarely cognizant, and do not require\ncomplex, stand alone tracking systems, for the small handful of single audit\nrecommendations for which they are cognizant. However, as an alternative, we are\ntaking the following actions. First, in our memorandum to be issued by January\n30, 2012, the Department will reiterate its expectations that operating\nadministrations track management decisions and milestones relating to all single\naudits, in a manner that best suits its operations, to ensure that actions are taken\nwith regard to findings with which we are the cognizant agency. Secondly, over\nthe last few years, the Office of Audit Relations has been convening TOTAL\nmeetings to share best practices with regard to single audit practices. This forum\nhas already proven effective as an opportunity to highlight best practices and\nexchange information across operating administrations. As described earlier in this\nresponse, the December meeting will be used to focus on best practices for single\naudits, including those pertaining to tracking.\n\nWith regard to high risk grantees, we do not agree that any additional guidance\nis necessary beyond that already available within 49 CPR 18.12, which\nenumerates a clear set of criteria for determining whether a grantee should be\nconsidered high risk. We have determined that these criteria outlined in\nregulation are sufficient for this purpose.\n\nRecommendation 5: Establish guidelines for when enforcement actions should be\ntaken if grantees fail to comply with grant awards and conditions. These\nguidelines should address time lines and severity of the issue.\n\nAppendix. Agency Comments\n\x0c 27\n\n\nResponse: Concur in part. Existing Federal laws and regulations (e.g. 23 USC,\n23 CPR and 49 CPR) clearly define when enforcement actions should be taken if\ngrantees fail to comply with grant awards and conditions. In addition, there are\nestablished Departmental and grant specific guidelines that are typically specific to\nthe statutory authority relating to the grant and are a fundamental part of grant\nmanagement. The OIG discussion relating to this recommendation alludes to\nmatters of significance but offered no discussion of the materiality of the findings,\nparticularly with regard to the context of the overall grant. Further, the report\nfailed to provide context of operating administration grant management and the\nrole that single audits playas discussed extensively earlier in this response. To\nimply, as stated on page 9, that FHW A did not act "solely on the basis of single\naudit findings," was some sort of lapse in oversight does not recognize the other\nmore focused and significant tools used to oversee grantees. Nonetheless, to\nensure that operating administrations make full and appropriate use of single audit\nfindings in their overall rubric of grant management, the memorandum to be\nissued by January 30, 2012 will serve to reemphasize the role that OMB Circular\nA-l33 establishes for single audit findings.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix. Agency Comments\n\x0c'


type: other

text:
maart 2018 – enkele gedachten – alguns pensaments
 Een omwenteling.
 De ontwikkelingen in het Catalaanse conflict zijn in een versnelling terecht gekomen. Na de verhoren en de arrestaties van de vijf politici afgelopen Vrijdag, was de maat bij de Catalanen vol en gingen zij de straat op om te demonstreren. Het Spaanse Hooggerechtshof stuurde opnieuw een Europees en Internationaal arrestatie-en uitleveringsbevel uit voor de Catalaanse politici die in verschillende Europese landen in ballingschap verblijven. De justitie van vier landen moeten zich nu buigen over het probleem of zij de politici wel dan niet aan Spanje zullen uitleveren.
 De ex-minister van onderwijs, Ponsati, heeft haar oude werk bij de universiteit van St Andrews in Schotland weer opgepakt. De Schotse presidente, Nicola Sturgeon, heeft te kennen gegeven dat zij voor het zelfbeschikkingsrecht van de Catalanen is en dat Ponsati om politieke motieven wordt vervolgd. Haar regering heeft bij de Spaanse ambassadeur geklaagd over het Europese uitleveringsbevel. Verder wil zij alles aan justitie overlaten die, zoals zij schrijft, in Schotland strikt gescheiden is van de uitvoerende macht. Ponsati zegt dat zij er gerust op is dat zij niet zal worden uitgeleverd. De rector van de universiteit van Glasgow, Aamer Anwar, zal haar verdedigen. Hij heeft uitgebreide ervaringen met het verdedigen van mensenrechten.
 Drie ex-ministers van president Puigdemont verblijven, heel toepasselijk, in Waterloo, België. De openbaar aanklager neemt hen niet gevangen omdat ze niet vluchtgevaarlijk zijn. De Belgische rechter stond twee maanden geleden op het punt om zijn oordeel te publiceren toen de Spaanse rechter plots het uitleveringsbevel introk. Hij werd hoogst waarschijnlijk getipt dat de Belgische rechter de ministers en Puigdemont niet wilde uitleveren.
 De politica Marta Rovira week Vrijdag naar Geneve uit en verblijft daar samen met de politica Anne Gabriel. Voordat Puigdemont Geneve vorige week bezocht, had Zwitserland reeds te kennen gegeven dat zij geen mensen uitleveren die om politieke redenen worden vervolgd.
 Hetzelfde zei men in Finland waar Puigdemont werd ontvangen door het parlement en de universiteit. Op dat moment, afgelopen Vrijdag 23 Maart, werd het arrestatiebevel weer uitgevaardigd. Finland accepteerde dit bevel niet omdat het in het Spaans was opgesteld. Het Finse OM eiste dat dit in het Engels moest gebeuren. Een anekdote, gezien het gevoel van superioriteit van Spanje wat betreft haar taal. Ondertussen reisde Puigdemont terug naar België. Hoe hij reisde was toen echter onbekend. Totdat Puigdemont afgelopen Zondag in Duitsland, vlak voorbij de grens met Denemarken werd aangehouden. Het blijkt dat de Spaanse geheime dienst een gsm-transponder had verstopt in de auto waarin hij reisde. De geheime dienst opereerde vanuit Denemarken en tipte de Duitse politie. Hiermee schond zij trouwens de Deense soevereiniteit. Dat muisje zal zeker nog een staartje hebben.
 De Duitse regering blijft pal achter de Spaanse regering van Rajoy staan. Haar woordvoerder zei Maandag dat Spanje een democratische rechtsstaat is en dat het Catalaanse conflict een Spaans interne aangelegenheid is die justitie aldaar moet oplossen. De Duitse pers, geleid door de grootste kranten zoals Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Algemeine en der Spiegel, is echter een geheel andere mening toegedaan. Zij is het er unaniem over eens dat Puigdemont een politieke gevangene is en geen oproerder die gewapend geweld heeft gebruikt. Der Spiegel zegt dat hem politiek asiel moet worden aangeboden. De pers vind het ronduit een grote schande dat Puigdemont door Duitsland is aangehouden en gevangen gezet. Der Spiegel suggereert zelfs dat de aanhouding onwetmatig is, daar de politie gebruik maakte van de Spaanse inlichtingendienst die buiten haar territorium opereerde. (Het staartje.) De Duitse justitie buigt zich er nu over, daar de Duitse wet een vergelijkbare misdaad in haar wet beschrijft, die van hoogverraad, als die van rebellie in Spanje. Dit is een voorwaarde om hem uit te kunnen leveren. Er moet dan wel worden aangetoond dat Puigdemont grootschalig gewapend geweld heeft gebruikt tegen de Spaanse overheid.
 De commissie van de mensenrechten van de VN tikt Spanje op de vingers. De politieke rechten van voormalig presidentskandidaat Jordi Sanchèz worden hem ontnomen (hij mocht de gevangenis niet verlaten om zich in het Parlement te presenteren). Spanje schendt hiermee het internationaal recht en moet dit onmiddellijk corrigeren. Vandaag accepteerde deze VN commissie ook de aanklacht van Puigdemont tegen de Spaanse staat.
 Ook de houding van enkele Catalaanse politici is aan het veranderen. De partij Comuns wilde zich nooit voor of tegen de Catalaanse onafhankelijkheid uitspreken. De grove rechtenschendingen en de teloorgang van de democratie in Spanje heeft deze groep blijkbaar van mening doen veranderen. Het lijkt er op dat ook zij nu begint in te zien dat democratie en een eerlijke rechtspraak in Spanje onmogelijk is. Afgelopen Zaterdag gaf Comu samen met de andere Catalaanse partijen een verklaring af. Dit was tot nu toe nog niet eerder vertoond. Een verandering in het stemgedrag van Comu in het Catalaanse Parlement zal de meerderheid voor een onafhankelijke Republiek significant vergroten. Morgen houdt het Catalaanse Parlement een plenaire vergadering en debatteert zij over een motie om er bij Spanje op aan te dringen dat de politieke rechten van Sanchèz en de andere kamerleden die gevangen zitten of in ballingschap verblijven, moeten worden gerespecteerd. Het lijkt er op dat de politici Sanchèz weer als presidentskandidaat zullen aanwijzen. Vanuit de bevolking en de burgerorganisaties dringt men er echter op aan dat Puigdemont moet worden ingesteld als president. Vroeg of laat zullen de Catalaanse politici ongehoorzaam moeten zijn tegen de Spaanse tribunalen (die overduidelijk hebben aangetoond partijdig te zijn en hun eigen wetten en de grondwet met regelmaat hebben geschonden), en naar de stem van de kiezers moeten luisteren. Of dat nu zal gebeuren, is echter maar de vraag.
 In de straten van de grote steden en op de wegen worden protestmanifestaties en wegblokkades gehouden. Men wil de druk bij Spanje en Europa opvoeren om de gevangen politici vrij te laten zodat het Parlement kan doen waar ze voor gekozen is: het in werking stellen van de Republiek door het aannemen van de juridische overgangswet.
 En de Spaanse leiders? Die beginnen nerveus te worden omdat ze beginnen aan te voelen dat de mening in Europa over het gevangen zetten van politieke leiders en de uitgebreide rechtsvervolgingen totaal anders is dan zij zich hadden voorgesteld. Misschien dat ze de Catalaanse onafhankelijkheid als een reële mogelijkheid beginnen te zien. Vooral nu de Duitse rechter die Puigdemont ondervraagt, rapporteert dat het waarschijnlijk niet mogelijk zal zijn om hem aan Spanje uit te leveren. Het Hooggerechtshof van Schleswig Holstein zal het definitieve oordeel vellen. Dit kan een zestig dagen duren. Dit geluid, en de geluiden uit de andere landen laat de Spaanse leiders zeker niet onberoerd. Ze hebben het echter helemaal aan zichzelf te danken.
 Het lijkt er op dat de publieke opinie in Europa en daarbuiten aan het veranderen is en dat er begrip voor de Catalaanse situatie ontstaat. En dat werd hoog tijd: er zitten mensen in de Spaanse gevangenissen vanwege hun politieke overtuiging en de fundamentele rechten van ruim twee miljoen EU burgers in Catalonië worden zwaar geschonden. Er is in Spanje geen sprake meer van een democratie en van een eerlijke, onafhankelijke, rechtspraak. De gekozen president, en de twee daaropvolgende kandidaten van zijn kieslijst, worden door de Spaanse regering van Rajoy niet geaccepteerd, zoals hij had belooft toen hij de verkiezingen (illegaal) uitschreef. President Puigdemont zit in ballingschap, de twee ex-kandidaten in de gevangenis. Dit is niet alleen een schande voor Spanje, maar voor geheel Europa. Het Catalaanse probleem is geen intern Spaanse aangelegenheid meer. (He, meneer Timmermans?) Het ligt nu op de tafel van de rechters van vier Europese landen. Dankzij de onverbiddelijke steun van de Europese Commissie en de Europese Raad aan de Spaanse regering van Rajoy, ironisch genoeg onder leiding van Duitsland, is de geloofwaardigheid van de Europese Unie zwaar in het geding.
 Met het uitleveringsbevel is het ‘interne Spaanse conflict’ een Europees probleem geworden dat de Unie diep in haar hart treft. Besluiten de rechters van de de lidstaten verschillend over de uitlevering, dan is er een onderling conflict tussen de lidstaten. Zulk een verschil van juridische interpretatie over een dergelijk belangrijke zaak is geen kleinigheid. Indien zij echter eensgezind besluiten om de Catalaanse politici niet uit te leveren, dan is dit groot gezichtsverlies voor Spanje en zal zij door de EU met andere ogen worden beschouwd dan een democratische rechtsstaat.
 Posted on 28 maart 2018 28 maart 2018 Categories Catalunya
 Catalaanse parlementariërs gevangen gezet
 Zonder enig gevoel van schaamte of rechtvaardigheid heeft Spanje het vandaag gewaagd om vijf politici van het Catalaanse Parlement die voor een onafhankelijk Catalonië zijn, gevangen te zetten. Hieronder bevind zich presidentskandidaat Jordi Turull.
 (Geinspreerd door ‘Met de gedachten meer bij het Hooggerechtshof dan bij het Parlement’, Antoni Basses, krant ARA)
 Gisteren vond het plenaire debat plaats waarin Turull zich presenteerde als president van Catalonië. Op monotone toon, zonder enige klemtoon, las hij het akkoord voor dat de JxCat en ERC waren overeengekomen. Zijn gedachten waren niet bij dit debat. Zijn zorgen gingen uit naar de dag van morgen, waarin hij opgeroepen werd om te worden verhoord door de onderzoeksrechter van het Hooggerechtshof, Llarena. De kans werd groot geacht dat hij, en vijf andere parlementariërs, vastgehouden zouden worden. In het Parlement hing een droevige stilte. Iedereen wist wat er speelde. In tegenstelling tot vorige vergaderingen, gedroeg zelfs de oppositie zich opvallend rustig. Deze keer hadden anderen het vuile werk voor hen reeds gedaan.
 De antisysteem partij La CUP liet vlak voor de plenaire vergadering weten dat zij de plannen onvoldoende vonden om de Republiek te realizeren en onthielden daarom hun stem. Daarmee was er geen absolute meerderheid in het Parlement. Er ontbraken twee stemmen omdat de huidige president Puigdemont en een van zijn ministers in ballingschap in België zitten. Zij mogen van het Constitutioneel Hof hun stem niet via een afgevaardigde in het Parlement uitbrengen. Voor morgen, Zaterdag 24 Maart, is opnieuw een plenaire vergadering gepland om met een gewone meerderheid Turull als president te kunnen kiezen. Of deze vergadering door zal gaan, staat nog niet vast. Turull heeft gevraagd om de vergadering door te laten gaan, al was het maar uit waardigheid van het Parlement, en daarmee van het Catalaanse volk. Rajoy heeft de voorzitter van het parlement duidelijk gemaakt dat deze vergadering illegaal zal zijn en juridische gevolgen voor hem zal hebben
 Het argument van Llarena, de rechter van het Hooggerechtshof, om de parlementariërs alsnog gevangen te zetten, is vanwege ‘hun psychologische toestand’. Vanwege hun denkpatroon zijn zij in staat om opnieuw te vervallen in hun misdaad: het aanzetten tot oproer en rebellie met gewapend geweld tegen de Spaanse overheden. Het denkpatroon waar Llarena naar verwijst, is de gedachte van het oprichten van een nieuwe, onafhankelijke staat van Catalonië. De rechter verwijst dus naar hun politiek ideaal. Het hebben van dit ideaal is dus een misdaad in Spanje. Hij verwijst niet naar begane misdaden, naar illegale feiten, die de politici zouden hebben begaan, zoals het in een rechtszaak behoort. Hij noemt mogelijke gewelddadige gebeurtenissen die in de toekomst plaats zouden kunnen vinden door de psychologische toestand van de politici. Maar er is nergens enig spoor van geweld door de Catalaanse politici te vinden. De rechter vaardigt bovendien opnieuw een internationaal opsporings-en uitleveringsbevel uit voor alle aangeklaagde politici die in het buitenland bevinden. Nu moet echter niet alleen de justitie van België worden overtuigd om de politici uit te leveren, maar ook die van Schotland (daar woont de ex-minister van onderwijs ), Zwitserland (Marta Rovira van ERC is vandaag daarheen gevlucht) en Finland (waar momenteel Puigdemont op bezoek is). Toen vorige week Puigdemont Zwitserland bezocht, gaf dit land al te kennen dat van uitlevering geen sprake zal zijn, daar het om een politieke zaak gaat. Spanje is blijkbaar stellig van plan om haar justitieële neus te stoten in Europa. In totaal worden er 25 politici aangeklaagd voor oproer met geweld (het gebruik van het politiegeweld op 1 Oktober wordt op het conto van de politici toegeschreven: zij hebben dit geweld immers geprovoceerd door een referendum te houden), verkwisting van overheidsgeld (na een uitgebreid onderzoek in de boekhouding van de Generalitat concludeerde het Spaanse ministerie van financiën dat er geen geld is gebruikt voor het van het referendum op 1 Oktober) en wettelijke ongehoorzaamheid. Kortom, ‘De aanklacht’ is een compleet verzinsel, een gedrocht met onlogische redenaties, verdraaiing van feiten en complete onwaarheden, ontstaan in het hoofd van een mentaal zieke die ieder contact met de realiteit heeft verloren. Maar deze misdadige psychopaat (hij wel) is door de huidige Spaanse president M. Rajoy op de plaats gedirigeerd waar hij nu zit: als onderzoeksrechter van het Hooggerechtshof.
 Zoals gezegd, is vandaag het aantal Catalaanse ballingen uitgebreid. De secretaris van ERC, Marta Rovira, die ook vandaag moest worden verhoord, is gevlucht naar het buitenland. Zij schrijft dat zij liever in ballingschap verkeert, ver weg van haar woonplaats, haar vrienden en familie, dan opgesloten te worden in een gevangenis. Niet voor haar zelf, maar voor haar dochtertje Agnes. De ex-minister van buitenlandse zaken Raul Romeva schrijft dat hij vanavond niet aanwezig kan zijn bij de verjaardag van zijn dochter. De beelden van Jordi Turull die afscheid neemt van zijn dochters voor de deuren van het gerechtshof, spreken boekdelen. Tranen van verdriet en woede over deze onrechtmatigheid. Zijn partijgenoot, Ramon Rull, die ook voor de rechter moet verschijnen, slaat een arm om hem heen. Misschien dat we deze mensen voor het laatst in vrijheid zien voor de komende dertig jaar. Of dat zo zal zijn, zo zei een van de politici vandaag, hangt af van de Catalanen zelf: hoe eerder we een Republiek hebben, hoe beter. Een andere weg is er niet.
 Vanwege de bijzondere toestand vandaag, waarin men gespannen wachtte op de uitspraak van de rechter, werd de plenaire vergadering van de gemeenteraad van Barcelona opgeschort. Het gemeenteraadslid van ERC vroeg hier om omdat in deze dag van spanningen niet het moment is om met elkaar te debatteren over een nieuwe tramlijn door Barcelona. Televisie programma’s zijn na bekendmaking van de gevangenneming verzet. Ook in de theaters en concertzalen werd vooraf aan de uitvoering solidariteit geschonken aan de politici. In sommige gevallen werd de uitvoering zelfs helemaal afgelast. Overal in het Catalonië wordt geprotesteerd. De mensen werden opgeroepen om om acht uur vanavond voor de gemeentehuizen te komen. Er zou dan een verklaring van de Vereniging van Gemeenten voor Onafhankelijkheid (AMI) worden voorgelezen. In Barcelona en andere steden vinden protestbijeenkomsten plaats voor de gebouwen van de afgevaardigden van de Spaanse regering. De ME van de Catalaanse politie moet de gebouwen van de Spaanse overheid beschermen tegen de protestanten. De gevangenneming van de politici vandaag zou wel eens de vonk in het kruitvat kunnen zijn die versneld zal leiden tot de Catalaanse onafhankelijkheid. De Catalanen zijn de minderwaardige behandeling, de constante beledigingen en de ongestrafte discriminatie door de politici, de media en de overheid, waaronder de rechtspraak en politie, meer dan zat. Wat de doorslag geeft, is dat met de uitspraak van vandaag een definitief einde is gekomen aan een democratische rechtsstaat in Spanje. Veel Catalanen zagen de democratische teloorgang al eerder. Vandaag zijn daar nieuwe mensen en politieke groeperingen bij gekomen die zeggen: ‘Niet in mijn naam’. Dat bleek uit de gezamelijke verklaring van de Catalaanse partijen, samen met Podem die zich nooit voor of tegen een onafhankelijk Catalonië heeft willen uitspreken. Boven alles staat dat de Republiek op een vreedzame, democratische manier tot stand komen, of helemaal niet. Men heeft hier geen behoefte aan een ander Spanje in het klein. Dankzij hun geschiedenis zit het gebruik van geweld niet in de aard van de Catalanen.
 Ondertussen heeft het Comitee van de mensenrechten van de VN geëist dat Spanje alles in het werk moet stellen zodat Jordi Sanchez zijn politieke rechten kan uitvoeren. Sanchez was tot begin deze week presidentskandidaat toen Puigdemont tijdelijk afstand deed van zijn kandidaatschap. Rechter Llarena liet hem niet vrij om zich te kunnen presenteren aan het Parlement. Hij beging hiermee de hoogste misdaad die een rechter kan begaan, namelijk die van samenzwering, aldus rechtsgeleerde Javier Perez Royo.
 Nawoord. De voorzitter van het Parlement, Roger Torrent, heeft bekend gemaakt dat de plenaire vergadering op Zaterdag 24 Maart, zoals gepland, zal doorgaan, ondanks de bedreigingen van M. Rajoy met gerechtelijke vervolgingen.
 Posted on 23 maart 2018 24 maart 2018 Categories Catalunya
 Een schoolvoorbeeld van gerechtelijke samenzwering
 Jordi Sànchez en Jordi Cuixart zitten nu 155 dagen in Spanje gevangen vanwege hun politieke idee over een onafhankelijk Catalonië. Om dezelfde reden worden Oriol Junqueras en Quim Forn sinds vandaag reeds 139 dagen lang van hun vrijheid beroofd. Zij worden vals beschuldigd van oproer en opruiing met geweld.
 Op 28 Januari diende de Spaanse regering van president Rajoy een aanklacht in bij het Constitutioneel gerechtshof waarin zij vroeg om de presentatie van president Carles Puigdemont, die in België verblijft, als kandidaat voor het presidentschap van de nieuwe regering via een videoconferentie met het Parlement te voorkomen. Het Hof kon twee dingen doen: de aanklacht weigeren of accepteren. Zou zij de aanklacht geweigerd hebben, dan had de presentatie van Puigdemont als president kunnen doorgaan. Had zij de aanklacht wel geaccepteerd, dan zou de presentatie van Puigdemont als president moeten worden opgeschort tot een definitief oordeel of zo’n videoconferentie wel of niet grondwettelijk zou zijn. Het Constitutioneel hof deed echter allebei: zij weigerde voorlopig de aanklacht van de Spaanse regering, maar zei dat ze binnen veertien dagen haar definitieve besluit bekend zou maken. Tegelijkertijd verbood het Hof wel de presentatie van Puigdemont in het Parlement via een videoconferentie. Bovendien eiste zij dat Puigdemont toestemming moest vragen aan het Hooggerechtshof, waar het gerechtelijk onderzoek tegen hem en de andere politici loopt. Het Hof ging haar boekje ver te buiten door de aanklacht te weigeren en tegelijkertijd de presentatie van Puigdemont te verbieden. Zij handelde hiermee zelf tegen de grondwet. Let wel: het allerhoogste gerechtelijk orgaan in Spanje handelt tegen haar eigen regels! De veertien dagen zijn inmiddels allang verstreken, maar het Hof heeft nog steeds geen uitspraak gedaan over de acceptatie van de aanklacht van Rajoy en zijn regering.
 Sindsdien is de Catalaanse politiek in een impasse geraakt. Er kan geen regering worden gevormd zonder de toestemming van de rechter. Hoogleraar in het Constitutioneel recht Pérez Royo van de universiteit van Sevilla, dus absoluut vrij van enige sympathie voor de Catalaanse onafhankelijkheid, is hier zeer duidelijk over. De enige persoon in geheel Spanje die gerechtigd is om een presidentskandidaat voor de Catalaanse regering voor te stellen, is de voorzitter van het Catalaanse Parlement, Roger Torrent. Geen enkele andere politicus van buiten het Parlement en geen enkele rechter, mag zich daarmee bemoeien. Nadat bleek dat de aanstelling van Puigdemont als president door de Spaanse justitie onmogelijk wordt gemaakt, deed Puigdemont afstand van zijn kandidatuurschap. De tweede man op de lijst JxCat, Jordi Sanchez, stelde zich toen verkiesbaar. Rechter Llarena van het Hooggerechtshof laat Jordi Sanchez, welke in voorarrest zit, echter niet vrij om als president van de Catalaanse regering te worden ingesteld. Sanchez zit in voorarrest op verdenking van oproer met gewapend geweld. Dat deze aanklacht pure onzin is, blijkt uit het feit dat de rechter geen uitlevering aanvraagt bij de Belgische justitie voor Puigdemont en zijn ministers. Hetzelfde geld ook voor Denemarken, Nederland, Luxemburg, Groot Brittanië, Oostenrijk, Duitsland, Zwitserland en Finland. Puigdemont of zijn ministers hebben deze landen vrij kunnen bezoeken zonder dat Llarena een uitleveringsbevel durft aan te vragen, omdat hij weet dat zijn aanvraag niet zal worden gehonoreerd. Volgens Pérez Royo zou over de beschuldiging van oproer echter nog gedebatteerd kunnen worden. Maar wat wel duidelijk is, is dat rechter Llarena de politieke rechten van Sanchez als volksafgevaardigde schendt. Sanchez is niet veroordeeld en kon zich zonder enig probleem kandidaat stellen met de verkiezingen van 21 December. Hij heeft daarom het volste recht om president te kunnen worden, indien in het Parlement daar een meerderheid voor is. Er bestaat zelfs jurisprudentie waar een ETA lid wél vanuit de gevangenis politiek actief kon zijn. Dit is een schoolvoorbeeld volgens het boekje waarin een rechter de hoogste misdaad begaat die hij kan doen, namelijk die van samenzwering (in dit geval met de Spaanse regering), aldus Pérez Royo. Het Hooggerechtshof benadeeld niet alleen Sanchez zelf als persoon, maar een ieder die op 21 December heeft gestemd voor het Catalaanse Parlement. Iedere stemgerechtigde kan daarom een aanklacht tegen rechter Llarena bij het Constitutioneel Hof indienen. Momenteel zijn er verschillende advocaten druk bezig om een dergelijke aanklacht te schrijven. Veel Catalanen staan te popelen om de aanklacht mede te ondertekenen.
 Het politieke leven gaat ondertussen ook door. Jordi Sanchez heeft te kennen gegeven afstand te willen doen als parlementariër om uit de gevangenis te kunnen komen. Rechter Llarena zegt dat hij niet kan worden vrijgelaten omdat hij terug zou vallen in zijn misdaad indien hij politiek actief blijft. Hoogst waarschijnlijk wordt nu de derde man op de lijst van JxCat, Jordi Turull, de volgende presidentskandidaat. Hij heeft reeds een aanklacht tegen zich lopen en werd na zijn eerste verhoor op borgtocht vrijgelaten. Twee weken geleden meldde Llarena dat hij een nog jaar nodig zal hebben om deze ‘ingewikkelde rechtszaak’ te onderzoeken. Tot ieders verbazing roept hij nu Turull , en vijf andere parlementariërs die aangeklaagd zijn, op voor komende Vrijdag om, ter afsluiting van zijn onderzoek (!), nogmaals verhoord te worden. Er bestaat een reële kans dat zij na dit verhoor in voorlopige hechtenis worden genomen. De verdenking is sterk dat de rechter de politici wil horen omdat hij ten koste van alles wil voorkomen dat het Parlement een president zal kiezen die voor de Catalaanse onafhankelijkheid is. De angst voor voorlopige hechtenis en een mogelijke veroordeling van 30 jaar gevangenisstraf hangt als een zwaard van Damocles boven de hoofden van de democratisch gekozen politici.
 Vanavond heeft de voorzitter van het Catalaanse Parlement, Roger Torrent, aangekondigd dat hij morgen, 22 Maart, een plenaire vergadering zal houden waarin Jordi Turull zich als kandidaat voor het presidentschap zal presenteren. De Catalaanse partijen dwarsbomen hiermee het plan van het Hooggerechtshof om iedere presidentskandidaat uit te schakelen die voor de Republiek is. Een nieuwe confrontatie met de Spaanse staat wordt een feit. De definitieve? Misschien nog niet, maar dat het een belangrijke stap is, staat wel vast. Spanje kan het zich niet permitteren om een president gevangen te zetten, en zeker niet in voorarrest voor een misdaad die in de rest van Europa niet bestaat.
 Posted on 21 maart 2018 22 maart 2018 Categories Catalunya
 Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart are now in jail for 140 days because of their political ideas about an independent state of Catalonia. For the same reason, vice president Oriol Junqueras en minister Quim Forn are deprived from their liberty now during 127 days. They are accused of sedition, which implies armed violence.
 This article was initially written to my contacts at LinkedIn.
 A dignified job, and life in general, is impossible if fundamental human and civil rights are broken. This is the case in Spain, member of the European Union and with its permissive silence.
 To my friends and professional contacts at LinkedIn,
 The LinkedIn network is mainly concerned about jobs, professional connections and career development. Though, the most important aspect of life, at least to me, is dignity. A dignified job is all we search for, of course. Although it might be one of the most important aspects, such a job will definitely not give the glorified thing if dignity in general is absent. Currently I have been confronted with this situation.
 My second country where I have been living during the last 22 years was Catalonia, an autonomic region in Spain with its main city Barcelona. About eight years ago people of this region concluded they could not be part anymore of Spain. Their dignity had been reduced to a minimum when the Constitutional Court sentenced against the new Statute that the Catalan language was not allowed to be the main language of the area as Catalonia cannot be regarded as a nation. After the Franco regime, many years of struggle, negotiations and non-fulfilled promises about the ways to fit the region within Spain as a common project had become exhausted. People started to search a way to decide about their own future. Since 2012, protest demonstrations were held for an independent Catalan state within the European Union. All demonstrations, where often more than a million people participated, have been exemplary peacefully and the entire political process towards the Catalan independency has always been democratic and with respect of its minorities and the Spanish state. Even though the Spanish government has never been willing to negotiate about a referendum about an independent Catalonia. After all terms for negotiating were exhausted and the Catalan government was forced to organize a referendum on its behalf to fulfill their promise against their voters, a referendum was organized at 1 October 2017. We all have seen the violent images of the Policia Nacional and Gaurdia Civil on that commemorative day, not in order to stop the referendum, but just to spread fear and violence among the Catalan people. Since then, civil and political leaders have been put in jail and others, like president Puigdemont, moved out from Spain in order to fled injustice. The Catalan autonomy has been intervened and fundamental human en civil rights have been deteriorated severely. The results of the imposed, illegal elections by the central government of president Mariano Rajoy, however, were won again by the independency parties. The central government, and their political alliances, however, do not accept this democratic result. In addition, the highest courts in Spain, like the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, are directly influenced by the political forces. This deterioration of democracy has been denounced by different independent parties, like Amnesty International.
 All this annoys me very much. That’s why I am currently not mainly concerned about a dignified job, but in a dignified live in general in this part of the world where life has led me to. As an engineer, solving non-linear differential equations, like the Navier-Stokes equation, or validating its results by experimental technologies like Particle Image Velicometry, have currently become a lower priority than optimizing the boundary conditions of LIFE. Although I mostly prefer to solve the first problem, the second one is of more importance to me.
 If you like to read the Spanish government’s opinion and its typical view on democracy and on reality in general, so to say, any large Spanish newspaper will perfectly serve you. Only the Spanish newspaper El Publico is an exception on this. Concerning the Spanish unity, the central government, justice and the media form a tremendous team of collaboration against the Catalan will to become an independent republic. In Catalonia the regional diaries Ara (ara.cat), Vilaweb (vilaweb.cat), El Nacional (elnacional.cat), who publish their main articles in English as well, give quite a good idea about the conflict from a different point of view. The Emma collective (http://www.collectiuemma.cat/) gathers press publications from worldwide. The Wilson collective (http://www.wilson.cat/en/), an association of international recognized scientifics, and the Praga collective, an association of lawyers (mainly in Catalan and Spanish, http://collectiupraga.cat/) explain the cause and their point of view about the conflict. For those who understand the Dutch language, I keep up a Web blog about this conflict at http://vdgraaf.cat/wp
 “Where did this guy learn to write? He wrote a disastrous PhD thesis with very few citations, if any.”
 “Oppression provokes creativity”
 “No, it’s the wine.”
 “OK, I admit. I drunk a glass”
 “Did you ever hear about the Stockholm syndrome?”
 “Yes, quite a few politicians in Catalonia suffer from this.”
 Posted on 6 maart 2018 17 maart 2018 Categories Catalunya - in English


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 4.7.2016
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 C 243/50
 Recurso interposto em 13 de maio de 2016 – Yanukovych/Conselho
 (Processo T-245/16)
 (2016/C 243/56)
 Língua do processo: inglês
 Partes
 Recorrente: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Donetsk, Ucrânia) (representante: T. Beazley, QC)
 Recorrido: Conselho da União Europeia
 Pedidos
 O recorrente conclui pedindo que o Tribunal Geral se digne:
 —
 anular a Decisão (PESC) 2016/318 do Conselho de 4 de março de 2016 que altera a Decisão 2014/119/PESC que impõe medidas restritivas dirigidas a certas pessoas, entidades e organismos, tendo em conta a situação na Ucrânia (JO 2016 L 60, p. 76), na medida em que se aplica ao recorrente;
 —
 anular o Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2016/311 de 4 de março de 2016 que dá execução ao Regulamento (UE) n.o 208/2014 que impõe medidas restritivas dirigidas a certas pessoas, entidades e organismos tendo em conta a situação na Ucrânia (JO 2016 L 60, p. 1), porquanto não revoga o Regulamento n.o 208/2014, na medida em que se aplica ao recorrente;
 —
 condenar o Conselho nas despesas do recorrente no presente processo.
 Fundamentos e principais argumentos
 Em apoio do seu recurso, o recorrente invoca sete fundamentos.
 1.
 Primeiro fundamento, em que alega a falta de base legal adequada para a adoção das medidas controvertidas pelo Conselho da União Europeia («Conselho»). Os argumentos em que se baseia este e os fundamentos subsequentes incluem o seguinte: as medidas controvertidas não preenchem as condições exigidas ao Conselho nos termos do artigo 29.o TUE. As referidas medidas controvertidas são inconsistentes relativamente aos objetivos expressamente invocados na Decisão (PESC) 2016/318 do Conselho (Estado de Direito e respeito pelos direitos humanos na Ucrânia). Com efeito, as medidas controvertidas colocam em risco o Estado de Direito e os direitos humanos, na medida em que dão apoio a um regime que não tem um historial de respeito pelos direitos humanos ou pelo Estado de Direito. O Conselho não pode razoavelmente confiar nas decisões da Procuradoria-Geral da Ucrânia, até porque não são nem independentes, nem imparciais e estão sujeitas a interferência política por parte do atual regime da Ucrânia. A presunção de inocência, a que o recorrente tem direito, tem sido repetidamente violada pelas autoridades ucranianas.
 2.
 Segundo fundamento, em que alega que o Conselho incorreu em abuso de poder. O real objetivo do Conselho ao implementar as medidas controvertidas foi e é o de tentar obter a simpatia do atual regime da Ucrânia e maximizar a sua influência política junto desse regime, o que não corresponde a um uso adequado dos poderes em causa.
 3.
 Terceiro fundamento, em que alega que o Conselho não fundamentou, ou não fundamentou adequadamente a sua decisão, limitando-se a basear-se em frases estereotipadas e imprecisas.
 4.
 Quarto fundamento, em que alega que o recorrente, no período relevante, não preenche os critérios expressos para inclusão de uma pessoa na lista. Os elementos em que o Conselho se baseou não constituem uma base factual suficientemente sólida para a colocação do recorrente na lista.
 5.
 Quinto fundamento, em que alega que o Conselho cometeu erros manifestos de apreciação ao incluir o recorrente nas medidas controvertidas. O Conselho não detinha provas concretas, factualmente fiáveis que justificassem as medidas controvertidas e não submeteu os elementos limitados de que dispunha a um escrutínio suficientemente rigoroso.
 6.
 Sexto fundamento, em que alega que os direitos de defesa do recorrente foram violados e/ou que foi lhe foi negada a proteção judicial efetiva. Entre outros aspetos, o Conselho não realizou a adequada consulta ao recorrente antes da aplicação das medidas controvertidas e não foi dada ao recorrente uma efetiva e adequada oportunidade para corrigir erros ou apresentar informação relevante.
 7.
 Sétimo fundamento, em que alega que os direitos de propriedade do recorrente, nos termos do artigo 17.o, n.o 1 da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE, foram violados.