type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" Office of Inspector General\n Corporation for National and\n Community Service\n\n\n\n\n AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES FOR\n CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL\n AND COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANTS\n AWARDED TO\n VOLUNTEER NEW HAMPSHIRE!\n\n OIG REPORT 09-12\n\n\n\n\n Prepared by:\n\n Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.\n Conrad Government Services Division\n 3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 600\n Bethesda, MD 20814\n\n\n\n\nThis report was issued to Corporation management on April 29, 2009.\nUnder the laws and regulations governing audit follow-up, the Corporation\nis to make final management decisions on the report\xe2\x80\x99s findings and\nrecommendations no later than October 28 2009, and complete its\ncorrective actions by April 29, 2010. Consequently, the reported findings\ndo not necessarily represent the final resolution of the issues presented.\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n April 29, 2009\n\n\nTO: Lois Nembhard\n Acting Director, AmeriCorps*State and National\n\n Margaret Rosenberry\n Director, Office of Grants Management\n\nFROM: Stuart Axenfeld /s/\n Assistant Inspector General for Audit\n\nSUBJECT: Report 09-12, Agreed-Upon Procedures for Corporation for National and\n Community Service Grants Awarded to Volunteer New Hampshire (VNH)\n\n\nWe contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of Mayer Hoffman\nMcCann P.C. (MHM) to perform agreed-upon procedures in its review of Corporation grants\nawarded to VNH. The contract required MHM to conduct its review in accordance with\ngenerally accepted government auditing standards.\n\nMHM is responsible for the attached report, dated April 17, 2009, and the conclusions\nexpressed therein. We do not express opinions on the Consolidated Schedule of Claimed\nand Questioned Costs, supporting schedules, and conclusions on the effectiveness of\ninternal controls; or compliance with laws, regulations, and grant provisions.\n\nUnder the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s audit resolution policy, a final management decision on the findings\nin this report is due by October 28, 2009. Notice of final action is due by April 29, 2010.\n\nIf you have questions pertaining to this report, please call me at (202) 606-9360 or Rick\nSamson at (202) 606-9380.\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: James Doremus, Chairman, VNH Audit & Finance Committee\n Tim Dupre, VNH Executive Director & NH AmeriCorps Director\n William Anderson, Acting Chief Financial Officer\n Rocco Gaudio, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, for GFFM\n Claire Moreno, Senior Grants Officer\n Sherry Blue, Audit Resolution Coordinator\n Randal Vellocido, Shareholder, MHM\n\n\n\n\n 1201 New York Avenue, NW Suite 830, Washington, DC 20525\n 202-606-9390 Hotline: 800-452-8210 www.cncsoig.gov\n\n Senior Corps AmeriCorps Learn and Serve America\n\x0c AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES FOR\n CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE\n GRANTS AWARDED TO\n VOLUNTEER NEW HAMPSHIRE!\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n Page\n\nExecutive Summary 1\n\nIndependent Accountants\xe2\x80\x99 Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures 4\n\n Results \xe2\x80\x93 Costs Claimed 5\n\n Consolidated Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs 6\n\n Notes to Consolidated Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs 6\n\n Exhibit A: Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs by Grant 7\n\n Schedule A-1 \xe2\x80\x93 Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs, Volunteer New 8\n Hampshire!\n\n Schedule A-2 \xe2\x80\x93 Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs, Student 9\n Conservation Association, Inc.\n\n Schedule A-3 \xe2\x80\x93 Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs, New Hampshire 10\n Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence\n\n Results \xe2\x80\x93 Compliance and Internal Control 11\n\n Exhibit B: Consolidated Schedule of Recommendations and Questioned 24\n Costs\n\n Appendix A \xe2\x80\x93 Corporation for National and Community Service Response to\n Draft Report\n\n Appendix B \xe2\x80\x93 Volunteer New Hampshire Response to Draft Report\n\n Appendix C \xe2\x80\x93 Subgrantee, Student Conservation Association Response to\n Draft Report\n\n Appendix D \xe2\x80\x93 Subgrantee, Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence\n Response to Draft Report\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG), Corporation for National and Community Service\n(Corporation), contracted with Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. (MHM) to perform agreed-upon\nprocedures (AUP) on grant costs claimed and grant compliance for Corporation-funded\nFederal assistance provided to Volunteer New Hampshire (VNH).\n\nResults\n\nAs a result of applying our procedures, we questioned claimed Federal-share costs of\n$234,809 and education awards of $1,374. A questioned cost is an alleged violation or\nprovision of law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement or\ndocument governing the expenditure of funds; a finding that, at the time of testing, such cost\nwas not supported by adequate documentation. Our cost testing results are summarized in\nthe Consolidated Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs.\n\nVNH claimed total costs of $2,899,631 from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2008. As a\nresult of testing a judgmental sample of transactions, we questioned costs claimed as\nshown below.\n\n Grant Federal Education\n Description Number Share Award\n\n Improper Recording and Reporting\n of Costs 04CAHNH001 $ 15,447 $ -\n Improper Recording and Reporting\n of Costs 07CAHNH001 10,144 -\n Unsupported Costs 07CAHNH001 967 -\n Improper Recording and Reporting\n of Costs 06CDHNH001 10,350 -\n Unsupported Costs 06CDHNH001 270 -\n Compelling Personal Circumstances\n Not Documented 03AFHNH002 - 1,374\n Unsupported Payroll Costs 04CAHNH001 56,616 -\n Unsupported Payroll Costs 07CAHNH001 92,151 -\n Unapproved Budget Costs 06AFHNH001 36,049 -\n Unapproved Budget Costs 06ACHNH001 8,975 -\n Unallowable Costs 06ACHNH001 3,840 -\n\n Total $ 234,809 $ 1,374\n\nWe also found unallowable match costs of $81,843, but did not question these costs\nbecause, after subtracting these unallowable costs, VNH would still meet its match\nobligation. Our procedures did not result in questioned costs for Competitive Grant No.\n\n\n 1\n\x0c03ACHNH001 and Program Development & Technical Assistance (PDAT) Grant No.\n06PTHNH001.\n\nAmeriCorps members who successfully complete their terms of service are eligible for\neducation awards and accrued interest awards funded by the National Service Trust. These\naward amounts are not funded by Corporation grants or claimed by VNH. However, as part\nof our AUP, we determined the effect of findings on member eligibility for education and\naccrued interest awards. Using the same criteria described above, we questioned\neducation awards of $1,374 due to non-compliance with program requirements.\n\nDetails related to these questioned costs and awards appear in the Independent\nAccountants\xe2\x80\x99 Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures that follows.\n\nThe detailed results of our agreed-upon procedures revealed instances of non-compliance\nwith grant provisions, regulations, or Office of Management and Budget (OMB)\nrequirements, as shown below under the Compliance and Internal Control section. Issues\nidentified included:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Lack of controls or controls not implemented over recording and reporting of Federal-\n share costs;\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Late submission of Financial Status Reports (FSRs), member enrollment and exit\n forms, progress reports, and Periodic Expense Reports (PERs); and\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Lack of adequate procedures and controls to ensure service hours are recorded after\n contracts are signed; subgrantees maintain documentation of members\xe2\x80\x99 compelling\n personal circumstances; and member contracts are accurately completed.\n\n\nAgreed-Upon-Procedures Scope\n\nWe performed our AUP during the period August 19 through December 10, 2008, and\ncovered the allowability, allocability, and reasonableness of costs claimed by VNH between\nJanuary 1, 2006, and June 30, 2008. We also performed tests to determine VNH\xe2\x80\x99s\ncompliance with grant terms and provisions for the following programs:\n\n Program Award Number Award Period Testing Period\nAdministrative 04CAHNH001 01/01/04 to 12/31/06 01/01/06 to 12/31/06\nAdministrative 07CAHNH001 01/01/07 to 12/31/09 01/01/07 to 06/30/08\nPDAT 06PTHNH001 01/01/06 to 12/31/08 01/01/06 to 06/30/08\nDisability 06CDHNH001 01/01/06 to 12/31/08 01/01/06 to 06/30/08\nAmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93 Formula 03AFHNH002 09/01/03 to 09/30/06 04/01/06 to 09/30/06\nAmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93 Formula 06AFHNH001 09/01/06 to 09/30/09 09/01/06 to 03/31/08\nAmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93 Competitive 03ACHNH001 09/01/03 to 09/30/06 04/01/06 to 09/30/06\nAmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93 Competitive 06ACHNH001 09/01/06 to 09/30/09 09/01/06 to 03/31/08\n\nThe procedures performed, based on the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s AUP program dated July 2008, have been\nincluded in the Independent Accountants\xe2\x80\x99 Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures\nsection of this report.\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cBackground\n\nThe Corporation supports a range of national and community service programs that provide\nan opportunity for individuals (members) to serve full - or part-time. The Corporation funds\nopportunities for Americans to engage in service that fosters civic responsibility and\nstrengthens communities. It also provides educational opportunities for those who have\nmade a substantial commitment to service.\n\nThe Corporation has three major service initiatives: National Senior Service Corps,\nAmeriCorps, and Service-Learning (Learn and Serve America). The AmeriCorps Program,\nthe largest of the initiatives, is funded in two ways: grants through the State Commissions,\nand direct funding to applicants, including funding under the National Direct Program.\n\nVNH, based in Concord, New Hampshire, is a 501c(3) organization established to promote\nthe tradition of volunteerism and ethic of service in New Hampshire. It is a result of the\nmerger of the former Governor\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Volunteerism, the New Hampshire Office of\nVolunteerism, and the New Hampshire Commission for National and Community Service.\nVNH has six employees and contracts with the New Hampshire Higher Education\nAssistance Foundation for a finance manager.\n\nVNH awards Corporation funds to subgrantees throughout the State of New Hampshire. Its\naccounting system allocates all costs under the Corporation grant by cost centers and\nsegregates between Federal and grantee shares. On a semi-annual basis, the finance\nmanager completes the required FSRs by using the cost data in the organization\xe2\x80\x99s general\nledger and the PERs submitted by the subgrantees.\n\nVNH received Corporation grant funds of $6,991,547, and claimed Federal costs of\n$2,899,631, for the period January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2008.\n\n\nExit Conference\n\nThe contents of this report were discussed with representatives from VNH and the\nCorporation at an exit conference held in Concord, New Hampshire, on February 5, 2009.\nIn addition, a draft of this report was provided to officials of VNH and the Corporation for\ntheir comment on March 03, 2009. VNH and two subgrantees generally agreed with the\nissues within each finding and the Corporation deferred its response until after it reviews the\naudit working papers and VNH\xe2\x80\x99s corrective action plans. We summarized their comments in\nthe appropriate sections of this report, and have included the responses verbatim as\nAppendices A, B, C, and D..\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c 3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 600\n Bethesda, MD 20814-6332\n 301-951-3636\n 301-951-0425\n www.mhm-pc.com\n\n Inspector General\n Corporation for National and Community Service\n\n INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS\xe2\x80\x99 REPORT ON\n APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES\n\n We have performed the procedures described below for costs claimed between January 1,\n 2006, and June 30, 2008. The procedures were agreed to by the OIG solely to assist it in\n grant-cost and compliance testing of Corporation-funded Federal assistance provided to\n VNH for the awards and periods listed below. The combined award period is September 1,\n 2003, to December 31, 2009. This AUP engagement was performed in accordance with\n standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and\n generally accepted government auditing standards. The sufficiency of these procedures is\n solely the responsibility of the OIG. Consequently, we make no representation regarding\n the sufficiency of the procedures described below, either for the purpose for which this\n report has been requested or any other purpose.\n\n Program Award Number Award Period Testing Period\nAdministrative 04CAHNH001 01/01/04 to 12/31/06 01/01/06 to 12/31/06\nAdministrative 07CAHNH001 01/01/07 to 12/31/09 01/01/07 to 06/30/08\nPDAT 06PTHNH001 01/01/06 to 12/31/08 01/01/06 to 06/30/08\nDisability 06CDHNH001 01/01/06 to 12/31/08 01/01/06 to 06/30/08\nAmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93 Formula 03AFHNH002 09/01/03 to 09/30/06 04/01/06 to 09/30/06\nAmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93 Formula 06AFHNH001 09/01/06 to 09/30/09 09/01/06 to 03/31/08\nAmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93 Competitive 03ACHNH001 09/01/03 to 09/30/06 04/01/06 to 09/30/06\nAmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93 Competitive 06ACHNH001 09/01/06 to 09/30/09 09/01/06 to 03/31/08\n\n We were not engaged to, and did not perform an examination, the objective of which would\n be the expression of an opinion on management\xe2\x80\x99s assertions. Accordingly, we do not\n express such an opinion. Had we performed other procedures, other matters might have\n come to our attention that would have been reported to you.\n\n The procedures that we performed included obtaining an understanding of VNH and its\n subgrantee site monitoring process; reconciling Federal-share and match costs claimed to\n the accounting system; reviewing member files to verify that the records supported member\n eligibility to serve and the allowability of living allowances and education awards; testing\n compliance with selected grant provisions and award terms and conditions; and testing\n claimed grant costs and match costs to ensure: (i) proper recording of grant costs; (ii) that\n the match requirement was met; and (iii) costs were allowable and supported in accordance\n with applicable regulations, OMB circulars, grant provisions, and award terms and\n conditions. Grant drawdowns were compared for consistency to the Federal share reported\n on FSRs submitted by VNH.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c Results \xe2\x80\x93 Costs Claimed\n\nCost testing results are summarized in the schedules and exhibits below. The schedules\nand exhibits also identify instances of questioned education awards. These awards were\nnot funded by the Corporation grant, and accordingly are not included in claimed costs.\nHowever, as part of our AUP, we determined the effect of member service hours and\neligibility exceptions on these awards.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c Consolidated Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs\n Corporation for National and Community Service Awards\n Volunteer New Hampshire!\n Questioned\n Approved Audit Period Questioned Education\nAward Number Program Budget Claimed Costs * Costs Awards Reference\n03AFHNH002 AmeriCorps-\n Formula $ 1,243,995 $ 200,987 $ - $ 1,374 Exhibit A\n06AFHNH001 AmeriCorps \xe2\x80\x93\n Formula 1,083,606 867,634 36,049 Exhibit A\n03ACHNH001 AmeriCorps-\n Competitive 1,551,258 177,102 - - Exhibit A\n06ACHNH001 AmeriCorps-\n Competitive 2,004,501 1,083,484 12,815 - Exhibit A\n\n Total AmeriCorps $ 5,883,360 $ 2,329,207 $ 48,864 $ 1,374\n\n04CAHNH001 Administrative $ 427,504 $ 72,063 $ 72,063 $ - Exhibit A\n\n07CAHNH001 Administrative 300,895 219,794 103,262 - Exhibit A\n\n06PTHNH001 PDAT 275,500 221,500 - - Exhibit A\n\n06CDHNH001 Disability 104,288 57,067 10,620 - Exhibit A\n\n Totals $ 6,991,547 $ 2,899,631 $ 234,809 $ 1,374\n\n\n * For the Formula and Competitive grants, the claimed costs will not agree to the amounts\n reported in Exhibit A on the following page because the amounts reported by VNH in its FSRs\n did not reconcile to the amounts reported by the subgrantees in their PERs. The claimed costs\n reported above were obtained from the FSRs and the claimed costs reported in Exhibit A were\n obtained from the subgrantees\xe2\x80\x99 PERs.\n\n Notes to Consolidated Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs\n\n Basis of Accounting\n The accompanying schedules have been prepared to comply with provisions of the grant\n agreements between the Corporation and VNH. The information presented in the schedules\n has been prepared from reports submitted by VNH to the Corporation and accounting\n records of VNH and its subgrantees. The basis of accounting used in the preparation of\n these reports differs from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of\n America as discussed below.\n\n Equipment\n Equipment should not be purchased and claimed under Federal or grantee share of cost.\n However, during our testing period, we noted that VNH purchased equipment and reported\n a portion of the cost as Federal share (See Finding 1).\n\n Inventory\n Minor materials and supplies are charged to expenses during the period of purchase.\n\n\n 6\n\x0c EXHIBIT A\n\n Schedule of Awards and Claimed Costs by Grant\n Volunteer New Hampshire!\n January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2008\n\n Questioned\n Claimed Questioned Education\n Awards Costs ** Costs Awards Reference\n\n 03AFHNH002 \xe2\x80\x93 Formula\nNH Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence * $ 64,043 $ - $ - Schedule A-3\nStudent Conservation Association, Inc. * 117,803 _ - 1,374 Schedule A-2\n Sub-total $ 181,846 $ - $ 1,374\n\n 06AFHNH001 \xe2\x80\x93 Formula\nCommunity Action Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc. $ 157,472 $ - $ -\nNH Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence * 366,461 36,049 - Schedule A-3\n Sub-total $ 523,933 $ 36,049\n\n 03ACHNH001 \xe2\x80\x93 Competitive\nCommunity Action Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc. $ 70,706 $ - $ -\nCity Year, Inc. 122,507 - -\nPlus Time New Hampshire 85,053 - _ -\n Sub-total $ 278,266 $ - $ -\n\n 06ACHNH001 \xe2\x80\x93 Competitive\nStudent Conservation Association, Inc. * $ 407,619 $ 12,815 $ - Schedule A-2\nCity Year, Inc. 899,521 - -\nPlus Time New Hampshire 161,306 - _ -\n\n Sub-total $1,468,446 $ 12,815 $ -\n\n Subgrantees\xe2\x80\x99 Total $2,452,491 $ 48,864 $ 1,374\n\n Commission Awards\nAdministrative (04CAHNH001) $ 72,063 $ 72,063 $ - Schedule A-1\nAdministrative (07CAHNH001) 219,794 103,262 - Schedule A-1\nPDAT (06PTHNH001) 221,500 - - Schedule A-1\nDisability (06CDHNH001) 57,067 10,620 - Schedule A-1\n Sub-Total $ 570,424 $185,945 $ -\n\n VNH Total $3,022,915 $234,809 $ 1,374\n\n * Selected for Application of Agreed-Upon Procedures.\n ** For the Formula and Competitive grants, the claimed costs will not agree to the amounts reported in\n the Consolidated Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs on the previous page because the amounts\n reported by VNH in its FSRs did not reconcile to the amounts reported by the subgrantees in their\n PERs. The claimed costs reported above were obtained from the subgrantees\xe2\x80\x99 PERs, and the\n claimed costs reported in the Consolidated Schedule were obtained from FSRs submitted by VNH.\n\n 7\n\x0c Schedule A-1\n Page 1 of 1\n\n Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs\n Volunteer New Hampshire! (VNH)\n\n Awards 04CAHNH001, 07CAHNH001, 06PTHNH001, and 06CDHNH001\n\n\n Reference\n\nCorporation Awards $1,108,187 Note 1\n\nClaimed Federal Costs $ 570,424 Note 2\n\nQuestioned Costs:\n Improper Recording and Reporting of Costs:\n (04CAHNH001) $15,447 Note 3\n (07CAHNH001) 10,144 Note 3\n (06CDHNH001) 10,350 Note 3\n Unsupported Payroll Costs\n (04CAHNH001) 56,616 Note 4\n (07CAHNH001) 92,151 Note 4\n Unsupported Costs\n (07CAHNH001) 967 Note 5\n (06CDHNH001) 270 Note 5\n Total Questioned Costs $ 185,945 Note 6\n\n\nNotes\n\n1. The amount shown represents the total funding to VNH according to the grant award\n documents.\n\n2. Claimed costs represent VNH\xe2\x80\x99s reported Federal expenditures for the period January 1,\n 2006, through June 30, 2008.\n\n3. Thirty Federal-share cost transactions were not properly charged to the grants (see\n Finding 1).\n\n4. The executive director\xe2\x80\x99s salary was not properly supported (see Finding 1).\n\n5. Five Federal-share cost transactions were not properly supported (see Finding 1).\n\n6. The questioned costs identified represent 62.5 percent of a sampled total of $59,463.\n Questioned unsupported payroll costs were not part of the sample and are excluded\n from the 62.5 percent.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c Schedule A-2\n Page 1 of 1\n\n Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs\n Student Conservation Association, Inc. (SCA)\n\n Awards 03AFHNH0020002 and 06ACHNH0010001\n\n\n Reference\n\nSubgrantee Awards $890,400 Note 1\n\nClaimed Federal Costs $525,422 Note 2\n\nQuestioned Costs:\n Unapproved Budget Costs (06ACHNH0010001) $8,975 Note 3\n Unallowable Costs (06ACNH0010001) 3,840 Note 4\n Total Questioned Costs $ 12,815 Note 6\n\nQuestioned Education Awards:\n Compelling Personal Circumstances Not Documented\n (03AFHNH0020002) $ 1,374 Note 5\n\n\nNotes\n\n1. The amount shown represents the total funding to SCA according to the subgrantee\n agreements.\n\n2. Claimed costs represent SCA\xe2\x80\x99s reported Federal expenditures for the period April 1,\n 2006, through June 30, 2008.\n\n3. SCA exceeded the Federal Section I (Program Operating Costs) budget by $8,975.\n SCA used available Section II (Member Costs) funds for program operating costs (see\n Finding 1).\n\n4. Equipment greater than $5,000 was purchased without being included in the approved\n budget or subsequently approved in writing by the Corporation prior to the purchase.\n SCA paid $8,000 for the purchase of a plow truck and $3,840 was claimed as a Federal\n cost (see Finding 1).\n\n5. One member was given a partial education award, but did not have any compelling\n personal circumstances documented (see Finding 3).\n\n6. The questioned costs identified represent 5.1 percent of a sampled total of $74,979.\n Questioned unapproved budget costs were not part of the sample and are excluded from\n the 5.1 percent.\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c Schedule A-3\n Page 1 of 1\n\n Schedule of Award and Claimed Costs\n New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (NHCADSV)\n\n Awards 03AFHNH0020001 and 06AFHNH0010002\n\n\n Reference\n\nSubgrantee Awards $989,405 Note 1\n\nClaimed Federal Costs $430,504 Note 2\n\nQuestioned Costs:\n Unapproved Budget Costs (06AFHNH0010002) $ 36,049 Note 3\n\n\nNotes\n\n1. The amount shown represents the total funding to NHCADSV according to the\n subgrantee agreements.\n\n2. Claimed Federal costs represent NHCADSV\xe2\x80\x99s reported expenditures for the period April\n 1, 2006, through June 30, 2008.\n\n3. NHCADSV exceeded the Federal Section I (Program Operating Costs) budget by\n $36,049. NHCADSV used unused Section II (Member Costs) funds for program\n operating costs (see Finding 1).\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c Results - Compliance and Internal Control\n\nFinding No. 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Lack of Controls or Controls Not Implemented Over Recording and\nReporting of Federal-share Costs\n\n\nImproper Recording and Reporting of Costs\n\nVNH did not have proper procedures and controls implemented to ensure that all costs,\ndirect and indirect, were charged to the proper grants. Instead, Federal-share costs were\narbitrarily charged to a group of grants that VNH officials believed the costs would benefit.\nWe questioned a total of 30 transactions of the 79 tested.\n\nEighteen of the 79 Federal-share cost transactions reviewed at VNH were indirect costs that\nwere not allocated to the appropriate grants. VNH could not provide documentation to\nsupport how these Federal-share cost transactions should have been allocated to the\nappropriate grants. VNH officials indicated that they allocated the costs randomly to any of\nthe grants as they believed that all grants were benefiting. Therefore, we questioned the\ntotal value of the 18 transactions, resulting in questioned costs of $14,705 for Administrative\ngrant (04CAHNH001), $8,114 for Administrative grant (07CAHNH001), and $1,633 for\nDisability grant (06CDHNH001).\n\nTwelve of the 79 Federal-share cost transactions were direct costs that were not claimed to\nthe proper program. Therefore, we questioned $742 for Administrative grant\n(04CAHNH001), $2,030 for Administrative grant (07CAHNH001), and $8,717 for Disability\ngrant (06CDHNH001).\n\nVNH believed that all costs incurred benefited all of its grants, including one non-\nCorporation Federal grant that they interpreted as assisting in the creation of national and\ncommunity service programs. Therefore, VNH determined it was not necessary to develop\nan allocation methodology to allocate the indirect costs to the appropriate grants and direct\ncosts did not need to be further scrutinized to determine the proper grant to be reported\nagainst.\n\nCriteria\n\nOMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations, Attachment A., General\nPrinciples, Section A.4, Allocable Costs, states:\n\n a. A cost is allocable to a particular cost objective, such as a grant, contract,\n project, service, or other activity, in accordance with the relative benefits\n received. A cost is allocable to a Federal award if it is treated consistently\n with other costs incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances and if it:\n (1) Is incurred specifically for the award.\n (2) Benefits both the award and other work and can be distributed in\n reasonable proportion to the benefits received, or\n (3) Is necessary to the overall operation of the organization, although a direct\n relationship to any particular cost objective cannot be shown.\n\n b. Any cost allocable to a particular award or other cost objective under these\n principles may not be shifted to other Federal awards to overcome funding\n 11\n\x0c deficiencies, or to avoid restrictions imposed by law or by the terms of the\n award.\n\nOMB Circular A-122, Attachment A., General Principles, Section B, Direct Costs, states:\n\nB. Direct Costs\n1. Direct costs are those that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost\nobjective, i.e., a particular award, project, service, or other direct activity of an organization.\nHowever, a cost may not be assigned to an award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred\nfor the same purpose, in like circumstance, has been allocated to an award as an indirect\ncost. Costs identified specifically with awards are direct costs of the awards and are to be\nassigned directly thereto. Costs identified specifically with other final cost objectives of the\norganization are direct costs of those cost objectives and are not to be assigned to other\nawards directly or indirectly.\n\n2. Any direct cost of a minor amount may be treated as an indirect cost for reasons of\npracticality where the accounting treatment for such cost is consistently applied to all final\ncost objectives.\n\n* * *\n\nC. Indirect Costs\n1. Indirect costs are those that have been incurred for common or joint objectives and\ncannot be readily identified with a particular final cost objective. Direct cost of minor amounts\nmay be treated as indirect costs under the conditions described in subparagraph B.2. After\ndirect costs have been determined and assigned directly to awards or other work as\nappropriate, indirect costs are those remaining to be allocated to benefiting cost objectives.\nA cost may not be allocated to an award as an indirect cost if any other cost incurred for the\nsame purpose, in like circumstances, has been assigned to an award as a direct cost.\n\nUnsupported Costs\n\nFive of the 79 Federal-share cost transactions we tested were not properly supported. As a\nresult, we questioned $967 for Administrative grant (07CAHNH001) and $270 for Disability\ngrant (06CDHNH001). VNH did not know why the supporting documents could not be\nlocated.\n\nCriteria\n\n45 C.F R. \xc2\xa7 2543.21 Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education,\nHospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations, Subpart C, Post-Award Requirements,\nStandards for financial management systems, states:\n\n (b) Recipients' financial management systems shall provide for the following.\n\n (1) Accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial results of\n each federally-sponsored project or program in accordance with the\n reporting requirements set forth in \xc2\xa7 2543.51.\n\n * * *\n\n 12\n\x0c (7) Accounting records including cost accounting records that are\n supported by source documentation.\n\n2006 AmeriCorps General Provisions, Section V B., Financial Management Standards\nstates in part:\n\n 1. General. The grantee must maintain financial management systems that\n include standard accounting practices, sufficient internal controls, a clear\n audit trail and written cost allocation procedures, as necessary. Financial\n management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures\n attributable to this grant from expenditures not attributable to this grant. The\n systems must be able to identify costs by programmatic year and by budget\n category and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs or\n administrative costs.\n\nCost Reconciliation\n\nThe financial records in support of VNH\xe2\x80\x99s claimed costs for all of the subgrantees on two\nformula and two competitive grants did not agree with costs claimed on the FSRs. VNH\nstated that it could not determine the cause.\n\nVNH lacked controls to ensure that it correctly entered the data from subgrantee PERs into\nits financial system. Subgrantees submit electronic PERs to VNH which, in turn, enters the\ndata into its systems. These amounts are then accumulated for all subgrantees and entered\non the aggregate FSR submitted to the Corporation. The FSRs for the two formula grants\nwere overstated, while the FSRs for the two competitive grants were understated. The\nunder and over amounts did not cancel each other out. The net difference did not increase\nthe cost to the government; therefore, we did not question any costs.\n\nCriteria\n\n2006 AmeriCorps General Provisions, Section V.B. Financial Management Standards,\nstates in part:\n\n 1. General. The grantee must maintain financial management systems that\n include standard accounting practices, sufficient internal controls, a clear\n audit trail and written cost allocation procedures, as necessary. Financial\n management systems must be capable of distinguishing expenditures\n attributable to this grant from expenditures not attributable to this grant. The\n systems must be able to identify costs by programmatic year and by budget\n category and to differentiate between direct and indirect costs or\n administrative costs.\n\nPayroll\n\nWhile performing the payroll testing, we found that the executive director\xe2\x80\x99s salary was being\nallocated 100 percent to Corporation grants, even though we were aware that part of his\ntime was utilized to support the Citizen Corps program, a program supported by a\nDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) grant that flows through the New Hampshire\nDepartment of Safety. VNH could not provide documentation to support the allocation of the\nexecutive director\xe2\x80\x99s salary to the different programs; therefore, we questioned his total\n 13\n\x0csalary of $56,616 for 2006, (Administrative grant 04CAHNH001) and $92,151 for 2007 and\n2008 (Administrative grant 07CAHNH001). The amount for 2008 includes salary paid until\nJune 30, 2008, the end of our testing period\n\nVNH does not require its employees to complete a timesheet or an effort report. VNH\nbelieves that the executive director\xe2\x80\x99s time equally benefits all of the Corporation grants, and\nthat the Citizen Corps program benefits the Corporation grants because it assists in the\ncreation of national and community service programs. Therefore, VNH did not believe a\ndocumented allocation of the executive director\xe2\x80\x99s time to all allowable grants was required.\n\nCriteria\n\nOMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations, Attachment B., Selected\nItems of Cost, Section 8, Compensations for Personal Services, states in part:\n\n m. Support of salaries and wages.\n\n (1) Charges to awards for salaries and wages, whether treated as direct costs\n or indirect costs, will be based on documented payrolls approved by a\n responsible official(s) of the organization. The distribution of salaries and\n wages to awards must be supported by personnel activity reports, as\n prescribed in subparagraph (2), except when a substitute system has been\n approved in writing by the cognizant agency. (See subparagraph E.2 of\n Attachment A.)\n (2) Reports reflecting the distribution of activity of each employee must be\n maintained for all staff members (professionals and nonprofessionals) whose\n compensation is charged, in whole or in part, directly to awards. In addition,\n in order to support the allocation of indirect costs, such reports must also be\n maintained for other employees whose work involves two or more functions\n or activities if a distribution of their compensation between such functions or\n activities is needed in the determination of the organization's indirect cost\n rate(s) (e.g., an employee engaged part-time in indirect cost activities and\n part-time in a direct function). Reports maintained by non-profit organizations\n to satisfy these requirements must meet the following standards:\n\n (a) The reports must reflect an after-the-fact determination of the actual\n activity of each employee. Budget estimates (i.e., estimates determined\n before the services are performed) do not qualify as support for charges to\n awards.\n\n (b) Each report must account for the total activity for which employees are\n compensated and which is required in fulfillment of their obligations to the\n organization.\n\n (c) The reports must be signed by the individual employee, or by a\n responsible supervisory official having first hand knowledge of the activities\n performed by the employee, that the distribution of activity represents a\n reasonable estimate of the actual work performed by the employee during the\n periods covered by the reports.\n\n\n 14\n\x0c (d) The reports must be prepared at least monthly and must coincide with one\n or more pay periods.\n\nUnused Member Support Costs\n\nBoth of the VNH subgrantees we tested exceeded the Federal Section I (Program Operating\nCosts) budget by utilizing unused Section II (Member Support Cost) funds for program\noperating costs.\n\nNHCADSV received approval from VNH to use the Section II funds; however, required\napproval was not obtained from the Corporation. Therefore, we questioned the program\noperating costs of $36,049 for Formula grant 06AFHNH001.\n\nSCA believed that funds could be reallocated without written approval from the Corporation\nas long as there was a budget variance of 10 percent or less. However, SCA did not realize\nthat funds could not be reallocated between Section I and Section II costs. Therefore, we\nquestioned the program operating costs of $8,975 for Competitive grant 06ACHNH001.\n\nCriteria\n\nThe 2006 AmeriCorps Grant Special Provisions, Section IV. M., Budget and\nProgrammatic Changes, states in part:\n\n 3. Budgetary Changes. The grantee must obtain the prior written\n approval of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Grants Management before\n deviating from the approved budget in any of the following ways:\n\n a. Reallocation of Funds from the \xe2\x80\x9cMember Support Cost\xe2\x80\x9d\n category to other categories of the approved budget.\n\n\nUnallowable Costs\n\nOne of the 60 Federal-share cost transactions at SCA was not allowable under the\nAmeriCorps grant. This cost was for equipment costing greater than $5,000 and was not\nspecifically included in the approved budget or subsequently approved in writing by the\nCorporation prior to the purchase. SCA paid $8,000 for a plow truck and $3,840 of this\namount was claimed as Federal-share cost; therefore, we questioned $3,840 claimed to\nCompetitive grant No. 06ACHNH001.\n\nCriteria\n\nThe 2006 AmeriCorps Special Provisions, Section IV. M., Budget and Programmatic\nChanges, states in part:\n\n 3. Budgetary Changes. The grantee must obtain the prior written\n approval of the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Grants Management before\n deviating from the approved budget in any of the following ways:\n\n * * *\n\n 15\n\x0c c. Purchases of Equipment over $5,000 using grant funds, unless\n specified in the approved application and budget.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Corporation:\n\n 1.a. Resolve the questioned costs of $234,809, and recover disallowed costs;\n\n 1.b. Ensure VNH develops and documents controls necessary to ensure that PERs\n submitted by its subgrantees are correctly entered into VNH\xe2\x80\x99s financial systems\n and reported on its FSRs; and that it performs a reconciliation of the financial\n system to the FSRs;\n\n 1.c. Ensure that VNH maintains adequate support for costs claimed and provides\n training to its subgrantees to ensure the development of control procedures so that\n only allowable and documented costs are claimed;\n\n 1.d. Ensure that VNH establishes and uses proper allocation methodology to charge\n indirect costs to the appropriate grants;\n\n 1.e. Ensure that VNH establishes controls and trains its subgrantees to obtain written\n Corporation approval before transferring funds between Sections I and II; and\n\n 1.f. Ensure that VNH develops and documents controls necessary to allocate\n personnel costs to its grants.\n\nCommission\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\nRegarding the \xe2\x80\x9cImproper Recording and Reporting of Costs\xe2\x80\x9d, VNH stated that it has created\na system to allocate indirect costs to appropriate grants, including the non-corporation grant\nthat is based on staff hours attributed to specific grants.\n\nRegarding the \xe2\x80\x9cUnsupported Costs\xe2\x80\x9d, VNH stated that it requested a spreadsheet of the\nexact questioned costs so it could continue to research those costs and stated that the\nspreadsheet has not yet been received. VNH stated that, although receipts may not have\nbeen attached to the purchase order, descriptions of the cost with a cashed check are\navailable, or a credit card statement identifying the purchase cost and description are\navailable. For each cash transaction, there is a purchase order that has appropriate\nsupporting documentation. VNH also stated that although there could be many reasons for\nmissing documentation, not having a financial officer on staff creates an environment where\nenergy is not dedicated to fiscal follow up, resulting in the occasional missing backup\ndocument. Finally, VNH stated that the VNH Board of Directors has established a finance\nand audit committee that will provide the additional oversight of the systems so information\nand documentation are provided immediately.\n\nRegarding the \xe2\x80\x9cCost Reconciliation\xe2\x80\x9d issue, VNH stated that this also will be a responsibility\nof the finance and audit committee, as it appears the system is in place and it is generally\nsound. However, improvement is needed in reviewing information to ensure it is accurately\nrecorded.\n 16\n\x0cRegarding the \xe2\x80\x9cPayroll\xe2\x80\x9d issue, VNH stated that it was the practice, based on the previous\naudit, for the administrative grant to provide the support to the other two, including charging\n100 percent of the executive director\xe2\x80\x99s salary. VNH stated that it has created timesheets\nthat identify grant allocations for salaries. Additionally, VNH stated that the percentage of\ntime dedicated to Citizen Corps is minimal. It averages approximately 4 hours per week and\nthese 4 hours are provided above and beyond the 45 to 60 hours per week that are\ndedicated to the Corporation\xe2\x80\x99s grants. As a result of the audit, VNH and the Department of\nSafety have agreed to allocate a portion of the Executive Director\xe2\x80\x99s salary, based on 4 hours\nper week, to the Citizen Corps grant.\n\nRegarding the SCA \xe2\x80\x9cUnused Member Support Costs\xe2\x80\x9d, VNH stated that this occurred due to\na misunderstanding of allowable budget variances. The person responsible for preparing\nthe PER did not realize that funds could not be reallocated between Section I (Program\nOperating) and Section II (Member) costs. SCA will ensure that staff preparing the quarterly\nPERs understands that reallocation of monies between sections is not allowed without prior\nwritten approval from the Corporation.\n\nRegarding the \xe2\x80\x9cUnallowable Costs\xe2\x80\x9d identified in the finding, VNH stated that, at the time, the\ncost was believed to have been covered in the budget under rent and utilities, but the\nrequired written approval does not appear to have been requested. In the future, SCA will\nensure that proper written approval is obtained from the Corporation prior to any non-\nbudgeted equipment or supply purchase exceeding $5,000.\n\nAuditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comment\n\nThe Corporation should consider the actions proposed by VNH and follow up to ensure that\nthey are implemented and effective. Regarding the unsupported costs issue, we maintain\nour position that we provided VNH with the details of all the sampled transactions during our\nfieldwork and again provided the information in an e-mail on October 29, 2009. Cancelled\n(cashed) checks and purchase orders are internally generated and are not sufficient\nevidence to demonstrate the transaction is valid. However, an externally generated invoice\nis generally sufficient source documentation to support the item purchased and the cost.\n\nWe also maintain our position regarding the payroll costs. As OMB Circular A-122 clearly\nstates \xe2\x80\x9cReports reflecting the distribution of activity of each employee must be maintained\nfor all staff members (professionals and nonprofessionals) whose compensation is charged,\nin whole or in part, directly to awards.\xe2\x80\x9d Additionally, a work week in excess of 40 hours is\nnot relevant for an exempt employee because the work week is not defined as 40 hours.\nTime charged to any Federal grant should be based upon actual effort, supported by an\nactivity based timesheet.\n\n\nFinding No. 2: Late Submission of Financial Status Reports (FSRs), Member\nEnrollment and Exit Forms, Progress Reports (GPRs), and Periodic Expense Reports\n(PERs)\n VNH and the two subgrantees we tested did not always submit required reports by the due\ndates, as shown in the table below.\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c Grantee/Subgrantee Number & Type of Reports Submitted Late\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 9 of 23 FSRs\n VNH\n \xef\x82\xb7 4 of 4 GPRs \xe2\x80\x93 Never Submitted\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 2 of 2 PERs\n NHCADSV \xef\x82\xb7 5 of 15 tested enrollment forms\n \xef\x82\xb7 2 of 15 tested exit forms\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 4 of 17 tested enrollment forms\n SCA\n \xef\x82\xb7 7 of 17 tested exit forms\n\nWhen subgrantees do not report their PERs to VNH in a timely manner, VNH will not be able\nto review, track, and monitor the subgrantees\xe2\x80\x99 activities. In addition, when FSRs and GPRs\nare not submitted to the Corporation in a timely manner, the Corporation will not be able to\naccurately assess the financial status of the grants and its progress to date.\n\nVNH\xe2\x80\x99s executive director attributed the delay in submitting reports to the Corporation to the\nlack of staff.\n\nNHCADSV indicated that the PERs were not submitted to VNH on time because financial\nreports containing all reportable expenses were not available until after the PERs\nsubmission deadline. In addition, the NHCADSV program director stated the Member\nEnrollment forms were late because the Member Service Agreement forms were not signed\nby the host site supervisors in a timely manner, and the Member End-of-Term/Exit forms\nwere late because NHCADSV was searching for missing timesheets and waiting for other\npaperwork to be completed.\n\nSCA staff stated that when they entered the enrollment forms into WBRS, they did not know\nthe forms needed to be \xe2\x80\x9cApproved\xe2\x80\x9d before submitting them; therefore, the enrollment forms\nwere submitted late.\n\nCriteria\n\nThe VNH-subgrantee Cooperative Agreement, Section V., Agency Responsibilities, Section\nB.4, states:\n\n At the close of the grant period, a final report detailing actual expenses for\n the program year will be submitted no later than 30 days after the close of\n the grant period (Close Out Report). The final invoice will indicate total\n actual expenditures.\n\nThe 2005 (revised in 2006) AmeriCorps Special Provisions, Section IV.N. Reporting\nRequirements, states in part:\n\n 1. Financial Status and Progress Reports.\n\n a. Financial Status Reports. The grantee shall submit semi-annual\n cumulative financial status reports, summarizing expenditures during\n\n 18\n\x0c the reporting period using eGrants. Financial Status Report deadlines\n are as follows:\n\n Due Date Reporting Period Covered\n April 30 Start of grant through March 31\n October 31 April 1 \xe2\x80\x93 September 30\n\n b. Progress Reports. A grantee Progress Report is due in WBRS on the\n first Monday in December of each year for the period from the start of\n the program year through September 30.\n\n 2. AmeriCorps Member Related Forms.\n\n The Grantee is required to submit the following documents to the\n National Service Trust at the Corporation on forms provided by the\n Corporation. Grantees and Subgrantees may use WBRS to submit\n these forms electronically. Programs using WBRS must also maintain\n hard copies of the forms.\n\n a. Enrollment Forms. Enrollment forms must be submitted no later\n than 30 days after a member is enrolled.\n b. Change of Status Forms. Member Change-of-Status Forms must\n be submitted no later than 30 days after a member\xe2\x80\x99s status has\n changed.\n c. Exit/End-of-Term-of-Service Forms. Exit/End-of-Term-of-Service\n Forms must be submitted no later than 30 days after a member\n exits the program or finishes his/her term of service.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Corporation:\n\n 2.a. Ensure that VNH develops effective control procedures so that it meets\n submission deadlines for FSRs and PERs; and\n\n 2.b. Ensure that VNH provides training that directs subgrantees to develop control\n procedures to ensure PERs and required member enrollment and exit forms\n are completed and submitted in a timely manner.\n\nCommission\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\nVNH stated that some, if not most, of the late grantee FSRs are attributed to lack of egrants\nexperience and knowledge. The Board\xe2\x80\x99s finance and audit committee will address the\nimprovement of systems as one of its oversight responsibilities. Additionally, VNH stated\nthat it did not find any late progress reports and has not received a response to its request to\nthe auditors for clarification.\n\nAuditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comment\nThe Corporation should consider the actions proposed by VNH and follow up to ensure that\nthey are implemented and effective. Regarding the progress reports, we maintain our\nposition that we were not provided evidence that they were submitted. This finding has\n 19\n\x0cbeen discussed with VNH at various times during the audit, including a discussion with VNH\nafter issuance of the draft report. We also stated that the final report will properly reflect the\nissue of 4 GPRs not being submitted, instead of the draft version, which reported 12 PERs\nwere submitted late.\n\n\nFinding No. 3 Lack of adequate procedures and controls to ensure service hours\n are recorded after contracts are signed; subgrantees maintain\n documentation of members\xe2\x80\x99 compelling personal circumstances;\n and incorrect member contracts.\n\nPre-Contract Service Hours\n\nThe two AmeriCorps subgrantees we tested permitted members to record hours before\nmember service agreements were signed. Nine of the 15 members tested at NHCADSV did\nnot sign their member service agreement prior to the start of their service. NHCADSV\nstated that member agreements were delayed because it wanted the site supervisors to sign\nthe agreements at the same time the members sign them. In addition, one of the 15\nmembers tested at NHCADSV did not complete a member service agreement. NHCADSV\nstated that this member was not provided a member service agreement due to issues that\narose during her background check. Therefore, this member was not allowed to work at\ncertain host sites, and eventually left the program before completion.\n\nOne of the 17 members reviewed at SCA did not sign the member service agreement prior\nto starting service. SCA stated this was due to an oversight.\n\n\nCriteria\n\nThe 2006 AmeriCorps Special Provisions, Section IV.C., Member Enrollment, states\nin part:\n\n 1. Member Enrollment Procedures.\n\n a. An individual is enrolled as an AmeriCorps member when all of the\n following have occurred:\n\n i. He or she has signed a member contract;\n ii. The program has verified the individual's eligibility to serve;\n iii. The individual has begun a term of service; and\n iv. The program has approved the member enrollment form in\n WBRS.\n\n b. Prior to enrolling a member in AmeriCorps, programs make\n commitments to individuals to serve. A commitment is defined as\n signing a member contract with an individual or otherwise entering\n into a legally enforceable commitment as determined by state law.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cCompelling Personal Circumstances\n\nOne of the 17 members tested at SCA was enrolled as a full-time member and was given a\npartial education award but did not have any compelling personal circumstances for early\nexit documented in the member file. Therefore, we questioned this member\xe2\x80\x99s pro-rated\neducation award of $1,374. SCA believes the member was enrolled as a full-time member\nby mistake and should have been enrolled as a quarter-time member; therefore, the former\nprogram director awarded this member a partial education award in order to exit the member\nfrom the program. These circumstances are not allowable compelling personal\ncircumstances and the National Service Trust should be reimbursed for the partial education\naward by the grantee or subgrantee.\n\nCriteria\n\n45 CFR \xc2\xa7 2522.230, Under what circumstances may AmeriCorps participants be released\nfrom completing a term of service and what are the consequences?, states:\n\n An AmeriCorps program may release a participant from completing a term of\n service for compelling personal circumstances as demonstrated by the\n participant, or for cause.\n\n a. Release for compelling personal circumstances.\n 1. An AmeriCorps program may release a participant upon a\n determination by the program that the participant is unable to\n complete the term of service because of compelling personal\n circumstances.\n 2. A participant who is released for compelling personal\n circumstances and who completes at least 15 percent of the\n required term of service is eligible for a pro-rated education award.\n 3. The participant has the primary responsibility for demonstrating\n that compelling personal circumstances prevent the participant\n from completing the term of service.\n 4. The program must document the basis for any determination that\n compelling personal circumstances prevent a participant from\n completing a term of service.\n 5. Compelling personal circumstances include:\n i. Those that are beyond the participant\xe2\x80\x99s control, such as, but\n not limited to:\n A. A participant\xe2\x80\x99s disability or serious illness;\n B. Disability, serious illness, or death of a participant\xe2\x80\x99s family\n member if this makes completing a term unreasonably\n difficult or impossible; or\n C. Conditions attributable to the program or other wise\n unforeseeable and beyond the participant\xe2\x80\x99s control, such\n as a natural disaster, a strike, relocation of a spouse, or\n the nonrenewal or premature closing of a project or\n program, that make completing a term unreasonably\n difficult or impossible;\n ii. Those that the Corporation, has for public policy reasons,\n determined as such, including:\n A. Military service obligations;\n 21\n\x0c B. Acceptance by a participant of an opportunity to make a\n transition from welfare to work; or\n C. Acceptance of an employment opportunity by a participant\n serving in a program that includes in its approved\n objectives the promotion of employment among its\n participants.\n\n\nIncorrect Contracts\n\nThe member contracts for two of the 17 members tested at SCA did not have all required\nelements as they did not specify the proper level of enrollment. The first member\xe2\x80\x99s service\nagreement stated that the member was enrolled in a half-time capacity; however WBRS\nindicated that the member was enrolled full-time. The second member\xe2\x80\x99s service agreement\nstated that the individual was enrolled in a quarter-time capacity, but WBRS indicated full-\ntime. SCA stated that both instances were due to clerical errors. These member contracts\ndid not comply with the AmeriCorps Special Provisions.\n\nCriteria\n\nThe 2006 AmeriCorps Special Provisions, Section IV.C. Member Enrollment, states\nin part:\n\n 1. Member Enrollment Procedures.\n\n a. An individual is enrolled as an AmeriCorps member when all of the\n following have occurred:\n\n i. He or she has signed a member contract;\n ii. The program has verified the individual's eligibility to serve;\n iii. The individual has begun a term of service; and\n iv. The program has approved the member enrollment form in\n WBRS.\n\n b. Prior to enrolling a member in AmeriCorps, programs make\n commitments to individuals to serve. A commitment is defined as\n signing a member contract with an individual or otherwise entering\n into a legally enforceable commitment as determined by state law.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Corporation:\n\n 3.a. Resolve the questioned partial education award of $1,374, and recover\n disallowed costs;\n\n 3.b. Verify that VNH develops controls to ensure that member contracts are\n signed before service hours are recorded; and\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c 3.c. Ensure that VNH provides training that directs subgrantees to develop control\n procedures to use compelling personal circumstances only when consistent\n with the regulations, and to ensure that member contracts are correctly\n completed.\n\nCommission\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\nRegarding the \xe2\x80\x9cPre-Contract Service Hours\xe2\x80\x9d, VNH stated that this was an oversight on\nSCA\xe2\x80\x99s part. Going forward, SCA will assure that members have signed their agreements\nprior to starting service.\n\nRegarding the \xe2\x80\x9cCompelling Personal Circumstances\xe2\x80\x9d, VNH believes that this was an error by\nthe Program Director, who did not file the document. VNH stated it is fully aware of\nAmeriCorps requirements to document compelling personal circumstances.\n\nRegarding the \xe2\x80\x9cIncorrect Contracts\xe2\x80\x9d issue, VNH stated that both of these were clerical errors\nand that SCA will endeavor to review entries more thoroughly to reduce the incidence of\nsuch errors.\n\nAuditor\xe2\x80\x99s Comment\n\nThe Corporation should consider the actions proposed by VNH and follow up to ensure that\nthey are implemented and effective.\n\n\n\n\nThis report is intended for the information and use of the Office of Inspector General,\nCorporation management, the Commission, and the U.S. Congress. However, this report is a\nmatter of public record and its distribution is not limited.\n\n\n\n\nMayer Hoffman McCann P.C.\nBethesda, Maryland\nApril 17, 2009\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c Exhibit B\n\n\n Consolidated Schedule of Recommendations and Questioned Costs\n\n\n Questioned Costs Funds Put to\nRecommendation Unallowable Unsupported Better Use\n1.a. $ 84,805 $150,004\n3.a. $1,374\n\n\n\nQuestioned Cost means a cost that is unallowable because of:\n 1. an alleged violation of a provision of a law, regulation, contract, grant, cooperative\n agreement, or other agreement or document governing the expenditure of funds;\n 2. a finding that, at the time of the audit, such cost is not supported by adequate\n documentation; or\n 3. a finding that the expenditure of funds for the intended purpose is unnecessary or\n unreasonable.\n\nUnsupported Cost means a cost that is questioned because at the time of the audit, such cost is not\n supported by adequate documentation. Unsupported costs are included in the total of unallowable\n costs.\n\nRecommendation that funds put to better use means a recommendation that funds could be used\n more efficiently if management takes actions to implement and complete the recommendation,\n including:\n 1. reductions in outlays;\n 2. deobligation of funds from programs or operations;\n 3. withdrawal of interest subsidy costs on loans or loan guarantees, insurance, or bonds;\n 4. costs not incurred by implementing recommended improvements related to the operations of\n the establishment, a contractor or grantee;\n 5. avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews of contract or grant\n agreements; or\n 6. any other savings which are specifically identified.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0c APPENDIX A\n\n\nCorporation for National and Community Service\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Draft Report\n\x0c NATIONAL &\n COMMUNITY\n SERVICHttt\n\nTo: Stuart Axenfeld, Ins'pe<:~General for Audit\n\nFrom: g sen s anagement\n\nDate:\n\nSUbject: Response to OIG Draft of Agreed-Upon Procedures of Grants Awarded to\n Volunteer New Hampshire!\n\n\nThank you for the opportunity to review the Office of the Inspector General draft Agreed-Upon\nProcedures report of the Corporation's grants awarded to Volunteer New Hampshire! (VNH).\nWe will work with VNH to ensure its corrective action plan adequately addresses and\nimplements the findings. We will respond with the management decision after we have\nreviewed the audit working papers and the VNH corrective action plan.\n\nCc: William Anderson, Acting Chief Financial Officer for Finance\n Frank Trinity, General Counsel\n Kristin McSwain, Director of AmeriCorps\n Sherry Blue, Audit Resolution Coordinator\n\x0c APPENDIX B\n\n\nVolunteer New Hampshire\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Draft Report\n\x0cFinding 1- Volunteer NH\nImproper Recording and Reporting of Costs\n\nVolunteer NH uses a purchase order system that identifies the grant and the line item for that grant that\na cost will be taken from. If a cost is directly associated with a specific grant, the purchase order will\nreflect that. However, for costs such as office supplies, rental of our water cooler, rental of our copier,\nand the like\xe2\x80\xa6. Volunteer NH has specifically used the Administrative Grant to support these items and\nhas not supported these costs among all of our grants. This approach was established by the previous\nExecutive Director as a result of the 2001 audit. Costs were distributed among the different grants\nbased on total amount of all grants (Admin., PDAT, Disability) and the percentage each individual grant\ncontributed toward the total. This was deemed to be an incorrect process and KPMG felt the\nadministrative grant should provide the basic support for all grants. This process was instituted by the\nprevious Executive Director as a result of the 2001 audit and remained in place until this most recent\naudit.\n\nCosts were not allocated \xe2\x80\x9crandomly\xe2\x80\x9d to any of the three grants. If a cost had a direct association with a\ngrant, that cost was allocated to that grant. A computer used by the Training Director would come out\nof PDAT.\n\nBased on the guidance provided by the auditors, Volunteer NH has created a system to allocate indirect\ncosts to appropriate grants, including the non-corporation grant, based on staff hours attributed to\nspecific grants.\n\nUnsupported Costs\nVolunteer NH requested a spreadsheet of the exact questioned costs so we could continue to research\nthose costs. We have not received a spreadsheet to date.\n\nAlthough receipts may not have been attached to the purchase order for payment, a description of the\ncost with a cashed check are available, or a credit card statement identifying the purchase cost and\ndescription as well. For each cash transaction, there is a purchase order that has appropriate back up\ndocumentation. These purchase orders and backup are delivered to Granite State Management &\nResources (NH Higher Education Assistance Foundation) for payment and keeping records. Copies are\nkept at Volunteer NH in paper form in three ring binders. Although there could be many reasons for\nmissing backup documentation, not having a financial officer as part of the Volunteer NH staff creates\nan environment where energy is not dedicated to fiscal follow up which results in the occasional missing\nbackup documentation.\n\nThe Volunteer NH financial management system is a sound system and process. The Volunteer NH\nBoard of Directors has established a finance and audit committee that will be dedicated to provide the\nadditional oversight of the systems so information and documentation are provided immediately. This\nwill result in timely accuracy and not create an environment where time goes by without ensuring\ninformation and documentation are provided.\n\x0cCost Reconciliation\nThis also will be a responsibility of the Finance and Audit committee as it appears the system is in place\nand is generally a sound system. Where the system needs improvement is on the \xe2\x80\x9cfollow-up\xe2\x80\x9d and\nensuring accuracy after information is recorded. Mistakes are not found because once things are\nrecorded they are not reviewed.\n\nPayroll\nAs described earlier with indirect cost allocations, it was the practice based on the previous audit for the\nadministrative grant to provide the support to the other two. This includes the Executive Directors\nsalary as that position provides oversight to the other two grants.\n\nTimesheets are required by Volunteer NH for all staff. However, an activity log has not been required\nthat would provide how salaries are allocated to different grants. From the guidance provided by the\nauditors, Volunteer NH has created timesheets that identify grant allocations for salaries.\n\nThe Executive Director does provide oversight of the Citizen Corps program. With the Citizen Corps\nfunds, Volunteer NH contracts a Citizen Corps Director who is responsible to administer the Citizen\nCorps program. The Executive Directors time is typically spent communicating with the Citizen Corps\nDirector, attending an occasional meeting or event, and being present at the Emergency Operations\nCenter when New Hampshire is affected by disaster as we represent State Emergency Support Function\n\xe2\x80\x9cvolunteers & donations.\xe2\x80\x9d The percentage of time dedicated to Citizen Corps is minimal and averages\nout to approximately 4 hours per week. These 4 hours are provided above and beyond the 45 to 60\nhours per week that are dedicated to the Corporations grants. Time spent on Citizen Corps was deemed\nto be above and beyond the 40 hours per week provided to the Corporations grants and was also\nviewed as meeting the \xe2\x80\x9cBigger Role of the Commission.\xe2\x80\x9d Dedication 4 hours per week in meeting the\n\xe2\x80\x9cBigger Role of the Commission,\xe2\x80\x9d which is not part of the 40 hour work week, was viewed to be part of\nthe responsibility the Corporation expected out of state commissions.\n\nAs a result of the audit, Volunteer NH and the Department of Safety have agreed to having a portion of\nthe Executive Directors salary, based on 4 hours per week, to be attributed to the small Citizen Corps\ngrant.\n\nUnused Member Support Costs\nProvided by program(s).\n\nUnallowable Costs\nProvided by program(s)\n\x0cFinding 2\nLate Submissions of FSR\xe2\x80\x99s, PER\xe2\x80\x99s, Member Enrollment and Exit forms, Progress Reports.\nPeriodic Expense Reports are not subject to a Corporation timeline. PER\xe2\x80\x99s are provided as the method\nfor programs to be reimbursed for program costs. Volunteer NH does require PER\xe2\x80\x99s to be provided the\n15th of each month so we can provide a timely reimbursement. However, some programs have\nrequested different PER reporting requirements, which have been approved.\n\nVolunteer NH was found to have 12 of 12 PER\xe2\x80\x99s submitted late. Volunteer NH is not required to submit\nPER\xe2\x80\x99s. We receive them from the subgrantees. Volunteer NH requested verification of this finding. We\nhave not received a response.\n\nGrantee Financial Status Reports are provided by Granite State Management & Resources, Volunteer\nNH\xe2\x80\x99s Fiscal Agent. Some, if not most of the late Grantee FSR\xe2\x80\x99s are attributed to lack of egrants\nexperience and knowledge. With the Finance and Audit committee this will also be one of the oversight\nresponsibilities which will improve our systems.\n\nVolunteer NH did not find any late progress reports. An inquiry was sent to the auditors asking for\nverification on this finding. We have not received a response.\n\nOther information provided by the program(s).\n\nFinding 3\nProvided by the program(s)\n\x0c APPENDIX C\n\n\nStudent Conservation Association\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Draft Report\n\x0cDecember 12, 2008\n\n\nMr. Darian Mims\nMayer Hoffman McCann P.C.\n12761 Darby Brooke Court\nSuite 201\nWoodbridge, VA 22192\n\nDear Darian,\n\nAttached are SCA\xe2\x80\x99s responses to the potential findings as noted in your memo of\nDecember 3, 2008.\n\nPlease feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the\nattached. The original of this document will be forwarded to you by US Mail.\n\nThank you once again for a very efficient and straightforward examination engagement.\nIt was a pleasure working with you.\n\nRegards,\n\n\n\nSharon M Mezzack\nController\n\x0c Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Inspector General\n Audit of Volunteer New Hampshire!\n Subgrantee: Student Conservation Association\n Audit Period: April 1, 2006 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2008\n\n Summary of Potential Findings\n\n\nMember Testing\n\nPY 2005-2006\n\n 1. One of the five members reviewed was given a partial education award, but did\n not have any compelling personal circumstances noted. We questioned this\n member\xe2\x80\x99s education award of $1,374.\n Member:\n\nSCA Response:\nWe believe that this was an error on the Program Director\xe2\x80\x99s part.\n clearly intended to serve as a quarter time member, and the SCA staff\nclearly intended to record him as a quarter time member.\nstart and end dates are the same as the others serving quarter time that year.\nWe believe that the Program Director mistakenly entered in WBRS as a\nfull-time member, and also mistakenly recorded him as a partial education award.\nSCA is fully aware of AmeriCorps requirements to file compelling personal\ncircumstances, and this document was not filed.\n\nGoing forward, SCA will continue to make clear to field staff and members what\ncomprises compelling personal circumstances to ensure that an error of this kind\ndoes not occur again.\n\n 2. Two of the five member reviewed did not have the proper enrollment type\n documented in the service agreement. One member\xe2\x80\x99s service agreement stated\n that the member was enrolled in a half-time capacity, but WBRS indicated that\n the member was enrolled in a full-time capacity. The other member\xe2\x80\x99s service\n agreement stated that the member was enrolled in a quarter-time capacity, but\n WBRS indicated that the member was enrolled in a full-time capacity.\n Member:\n\n\nSCA Response:\nBoth of these were clerical errors. SCA will endeavor to review entries more\nthoroughly to reduce the incidence of such errors.\n\x0c 3. An end-of-term/exit form was not submitted in a timely manner for one of the five\n members reviewed. This member\xe2\x80\x99s end-of-term/exit form was submitted more\n than 30 days after the member completed service.\n Member: (4 days late)\n\nSCA Response:\nThe NHCC Program Director who served at this time is not a current employee of\nSCA, and we were not able to determine why the exit form was completed after\nthe deadline. SCA, however, is a aware of the 30 day window after completion of\nservice, and will continue to provide the appropriate training to our Program\nDirectors in fulfilling this requirement and using AmeriCorps\xe2\x80\x99 technical systems\nprovided to do this.\n\nPY 2006-2007\n\n 1. End-of-term/exit forms were not submitted in a timely manner for six of the seven\n members reviewed. These members\xe2\x80\x99 end-of-term/exit forms were submitted\n more than 30 days after the members completed service.\n Member: (10 days late)\n (24 days late)\n (11 days late)\n (10 days late)\n (10 days late)\n (10 days late)\n\nSCA Response:\nSCA understands the AmeriCorps requirement for exiting members from WBRS\nwithin the 30 day period following their last day of service. This was an oversight\non SCA\xe2\x80\x99s part. Moving forward, SCA will continue to provide the Program\nDirectors with training to assure compliance to this AmeriCorps requirement.\n\nPY 2007-2008\n\n 1. One of the five members reviewed signed the member service agreement after\n their start of service date.\n Member:\n\nSCA Response:\nSCA understands the AmeriCorps requirement for having members sign their\nservice agreement prior to starting service. This was an oversight on SCA\xe2\x80\x99s part.\nGoing forward, SCA will assure that members have signed their agreements prior\nto starting service. SCA has further streamlined the member paperwork\nprocesses over the course of the last year, including improved electronic tracking\nsystems, so that staff in the field programs can have more up-to-date access to\ninformation on member paperwork received.\n\x0c 2. Enrollment forms were not submitted in a timely manner for four of the five\n members reviewed. These members\xe2\x80\x99 enrollment forms were submitted more than\n 30 days after the members\xe2\x80\x99 start dates.\n Member: (20 days late)\n (20 days late)\n (20 days late)\n (20 days late)\n\nSCA Response:\nThis was due to a misunderstanding of the technical process in WBRS on the\nSCA NHCC Program Director\xe2\x80\x99s part. He was aware of the time line for WBRS\nenrollment entries and entered in their enrollment forms as per that schedule. He,\nhowever, must not have understood the need to \xe2\x80\x9capprove\xe2\x80\x9d their submission, as\nwell as enter them. Moving forward, SCA will be sure the Program Director is\ninformed of the need to both enter and approve the WBRS entries.\n\nCost Testing\n\nPY 2005-2006\n\n None\n\nPY 2006-2007\n\n One of the 20 transactions reviewed was for equipment/supplies greater than $5,000,\n and not specifically included in the approved budget or subsequently approved in\n writing by the Corporation prior to the purchase. This purchase was for a plow truck\n for $8,000 ($3,840 Federal share and $4,160 grantee share). We questioned this\n amount.\n\nSCA Response:\nIn 2006, SCA\xe2\x80\x99s primary partner for this program, NH State Parks, informed SCA\nthat, due to financial difficulties they were facing, they would no longer be able to\ncover the cost of plowing the 3 mile road to the residential site where members\nand staff were housed. In order to implement the program and ensure the safety\nof members and staff, it was essential to either purchase a plow truck or pay a\nprivate entity to plow the road. Due to the length of the road, the prior option was\nmore financially viable. SCA purchased the plow truck, and allocated part of the\ncost to the Corporation. At the time, the cost was believed to have been covered\nin the budget under rent and utilities, but the required written approval does not\nappear to have been requested. Despite this issue, the cost was an allowable\nprogram cost. In the future, SCA will ensure that proper written approval is\nobtained from the Corporation prior to any non-budgeted equipment or supply\npurchase exceeding $5,000.\n\x0cPY 2007-2008\n\n None\n\nOther Compliance\n\nPY 2005-2006\n 1. SCA exceeded the Federal Section I (Program Operating Costs) budget by\n $8,975. SCA used unused Section II (Member Costs) funds for program\n operating costs. We questioned this amount.\n\nSCA Response:\nThis occurred due to a misunderstanding of allowable budget variances. The\nperson responsible for preparing the PER for that period understood that a\nbudget variance of 10% or less was allowed without written approval by the\nCorporation, but apparently did not realize that funds could not be reallocated\nbetween Section I (Program Operating) and Section II (Member) costs.\n\nSCA will ensure that any staff responsible for preparing the quarterly PERs\nunderstands that reallocation of monies between Sections is not allowed without\nprior written approval of the Corporation.\n\nPY 2006-2007\n\n None\n\n\nPY 2007-2008\n\n None\n\x0c APPENDIX D\n\n\nCoalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence\xe2\x80\x99s Response to Draft Report\n\x0c2005 -2006\n 1. (1 day late) and (2 days late) Member Service\n Agreements were late due to waiting for a Host Site Supervisor to sign. Despite\n all members and AVAP staff signing the agreement on the first day of their\n service, we waited for all signatures. We incorrectly believed that we had to wait\n for the Host Site Supervisor to sign the agreements before \xe2\x80\x9centering\xe2\x80\x9d the\n members. Member Service Agreement was late for the same\n reason but was complicated by the fact that she worked at a remote site\n ). In addition, she had two Host Site supervisors at two other sites (one\n in Laconia, NH and one in Concord NH).\n 2. Enrollment form was late due to late Host Site signature on her\n Member Service Agreement. (see 1 above)\n 3. had an end of the term /exit evaluation but it was dated July 17,\n 2006. During this time period (Mid June \xe2\x80\x93 September 2006) AVAP was without a\n Program Coordinator. I was the only staff and was doing two full-time jobs. In\n order to try to keep on top of all the 2005-2006 end of the year needs as well as\n recruitment and training for 2006-2007, I sent out the End of the Year Evaluations\n a bit early. I did not realize (since there is no timeline in the Provisions) that I was\n sending them out \xe2\x80\x9ctoo early\xe2\x80\x9d according to the auditors. I was trying to make sure I\n stayed on top of all the requirements\n\n2006-2007\n 1. Again, Member Service Agreements were late due to waiting to have Host Site\n Supervisors sign off on them.\n 2. Member Enrollment forms were late due to waiting for Member Service\n Agreement forms to be signed by Host Site Supervisors.\n 3. Page\xe2\x80\x99s End of the Term/Exit form was late due to attempting repeatedly\n to get missing timesheets and other paperwork from her.\n 4. was placed at a police department. The police department took 4\n months to do a background check on her. Since the background check was not\n completed by the time she started her service with them, they refused to sign the\n agreement. The member got upset with the issues they brought up from her past\n while doing the background check and left the program before any paperwork\n could be completed.\n\n 2007-2008\n 1. Again, both Member Service Agreements were late due to waiting for Host Site\n signatures.\n 2. The Enrollment form was late due to a late Member Service Agreement being\n signed by the Host Site Supervisor.\n 3. End of Term/Exit form was submitted late because we were\n waiting for missing timesheets and other paperwork. Despite repeated requests\n and promises that it was going to be delivered it did not arrive. I finally exited her\n for cause and did not allow her to receive an Education Award.\n\x0c"


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
14. 1 . 75 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen Nr. L 9 / 21
 OVEREENKOMST
 tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap en de Republiek India betref
 fende de levering van magere-melkpoeder als voedselhulp
 DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE GEMEENSCHAPPEN ,
 enerzijds,
 DE REGERING VAN DE REPUBLIEK INDIA,
 anderzijds,
 HEBBEN BESLOTEN deze Overeenkomst te sluiten en hebben daartoe als gevolmachtigden aange
 wezen :
 DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE GEMEENSCHAPPEN :
 DE REGERING VAN DE REPUBLIEK INDIA :
 DIE OMTRENT DE VOLGENDE BEPALINGEN OVEREENSTEMMING HEBBEN BEREIKT :
 A rtikel I doeleinden aan te wenden en bij de verkoop ervan op
 zijn markt de prijzen toe te passen die op deze markt
 De Europese Economische Gemeenschap, hierna ge
 voor produkten van vergelijkbare kwaliteit normaliter
 noemd „Gemeenschap", levert aan de Republiek India,
 worden gebezigd .
 hierna genoemd „ land van bestemming", als gift 2 750
 ton magere-melkpoeder, waarvan de kwaliteit en de De opbrengst van deze verkoop, in overleg tussen de
 wijze van verpakking worden gespecificeerd in bijlage Gemeenschap en het land van bestemming forfaitair
 I, welke een integrerend deel uitmaakt van deze Over vastgesteld, wordt als ontvangst geboekt op het budget
 eenkomst.
 van de centrale overheid van dit land en aangewend
 Artikel II
 voor het financieren van ontwikkelingsprojecten , die
 door het land van bestemming aan de Gemeenschap
 De leveringen worden verricht volgens de voorschrif worden medegedeeld en die geen aanleiding geven tot
 ten van bijlage II , die een integrerend deel uitmaakt bedenkingen van de zijde van de Gemeenschap .
 van deze Overeenkomst .
 Artikel III A rtikel V
 Het land van bestemming verplicht zich ertoe alle De Partijen bij de Overeenkomst verplichten zich er
 nodige maatregelen te nemen voor het vervoer en de toe, deze zodanig uit te voeren dat aan de normale
 verzekering vanaf de plaats van levering tot de plaat structuur van de nationale produktie en van de inter
 sen van bestemming. nationale handel geen nadeel wordt berokkend . Zij
 Het verplicht zich ertoe, met de grootst mogelijke treffen daartoe de nodige maatregelen om te verzeke
 zorg ernaar te streven dat de gunning van het zeever ren dat de leveringen in het kader van de voedselhulp
 voer geen afbreuk doet aan de vrije werking van een een aanvulling vormen op, en niet in de plaats komen
 billijke concurrentie . Ten aanzien van de problemen van , de handelstransacties die zonder zodanige leve
 die zich in dit verband kunnen voordoen , wordt over ringen redelijkerwijs te verwachten zijn .
 leg gepleegd uit hoofde van artikel VIII .
 Artikel VI
 Artikel IV
 Het land van bestemming verplicht zich ertoe de als Het land van bestemming neemt alle dienstige maat
 voedselhulp ontvangen produkten voor consumptieve regelen ter voorkoming van :
 ---pagebreak--- Nr. L 9 /22 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 14. 1 . 75
 — de wederuitvoer zowel van de als voedselhulp ont verbruikt : verkochte hoeveelheden ; wijze van in
 vangen produkten als van de hiervan afkomstige de handel brengen ; toegepaste verkoopprijzen :
 produkten ; normale kosten voor het in de handel brengen op
 — de commerciële en de niet-commerciële uitvoer, de markt van het land van bestemming ; de kosten
 gedurende een periode van 6 maanden vanaf de van verzekering en, in voorkomend geval, van ver
 laatste levering, zowel van de ter plaatse geprodu voer vanaf de loshaven tot de plaatsen van be
 ceerde produkten die met de als gift ontvangen stemming ;
 produkten overeenkomen als van de hiervan af 3 . op 15 januari van elk jaar en totdat de ontwikke
 komstige produkten . lingsprojecten volledig zijn uitgevoerd : stand van
 uitvoering van het project of de projecten met aan
 Artikel VII duiding van het in dat stadium gefinancierde be
 Het land van bestemming verplicht zich ertoe, de wij drag.
 ze van uitvoering van deze Overeenkomst ter kennis
 van de Gemeenschap te brengen . Daartoe verstrekt Artikel VIII
 het aan de Commissie Van de Europese Gemeen Op verzoek van één van de Partijen vindt overleg tus
 schappen de volgende gegevens : sen de Partijen bij de Overeenkomst plaats over alle
 1 . onmiddellijk na het lossen van elke lading : haven vraagstukken in verband met de toepassing van deze
 Overeenkomst.
 en datum van aankomst van het schip ; aard en
 hoeveelheid van de geloste goederen en eventuele
 opmerkingen over de kwaliteit ; datum waarop het Artikel IX
 lossen is beëindigd ; kosten van het zeevervoer en
 de daarvoor gesloten verzekering ; Deze Overeenkomst is opgesteld in twee exemplaren ,
 in de Deense, de Duitse, de Engelse, de Franse, de Ita
 2 . om de 3 maanden totdat de in het kader van de liaanse en de Nederlandse taal, zijnde alle teksten ge
 voedselhulp geleverde hoeveelheden volledig zijn lijkelijk authentiek .
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 1 . 75 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen Nr. L 9/23
 BIJLAGE I
 MAGERE-MELKPOEDER
 KWALITEIT EN WIJZE VAN VERPAKKING
 I. Kwaliteitseisen
 a) vetgehalte : ten hoogste 1,5 %
 b) watergehalte : ten hoogste 4,0 %
 c) totaal zuurgehalte, uitgedrukt in melkzuur : ten hoogste 0,15 % ( 18° Dornic)
 d) proef op aanwezigheid van neutraliseer
 middelen : negatief
 e) toegelaten additieven : geen
 f) fosfataseproef : negatief
 g) oplosbaarheid : ten hoogste 0,5 ml (ten minste 99 %)
 h) zuiverheidsgraad : ten minste schijf B ( 15,0 mg)
 i) kiemgehalte : ten hoogste 50 000 per g
 k) titer colibacillen : negatief in 0,1 g
 1) smaak en geur : zuiver
 m) uiterlijk : witte of lichtgele kleur, geen onzuiverheden
 noch gekleurde deeltjes
 II . Verpakking
 a) netto-inhoud 25 kilogram ;
 b) materiaal :
 aa) 4 zakken in Kraftpapier, met een sterkte van ten minste 70 g per m 2 ;
 1 zak in teerpapier als tussenlaag met een sterkte van ten minste 140 g per m 2 ;
 1 binnenzak in polyethyleen, ten minste 0,06 mm dik, gelast of met dubbele klemslui
 ting ;
 of
 bb) 1 zak in „clupak-poly-duplo''-papier met een sterkte van ten minste 50/20/50 g per m2 ;
 2 zakken in Kraftpapier, met een sterkte van ten minste 70/75 g per m2 ;
 1 binnenzak in polyethyleen, ten minste 0,10 mm dik, gelast of met dubbele klemslui
 ting ;
 of
 cc) 1 zak in Kraftpapier, met een sterkte van ten minste 70 g per m 2 ;
 1 zak in Kraftpapier met een polyethyleenlaag, met een sterkte van ten minste 80 g + 15
 g per m 2 ;
 3 zakken in Kraftpapier, met een sterkte van ten minste 70 g per m 2 ;
 1 binnenzak van polyethyleen van ten minste 0,06 mm dikte, dichtgelast of dubbel ge
 naaid .
 c) opschrift op de verpakking (in het Engels) :
 SKIMMED-MILK POWDER — GIFT OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
 TO THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA
 ---pagebreak--- Nr. L 9/24 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 14 . 1 . 75
 BIJLAGE II
 LEVERINGSBEPALINGEN
 HOOFDSTUK I De andere in de eerste alinea bedoelde kosten worden slechts
 door de Gemeenschap vergoed, indien zij door het land van
 bestemming met instemming van de Gemeenschap zijn be
 Algemene bepalingen taald .
 Artikel 1 Artikel 5
 De levering is verricht en de risico's gaan van de Gemeen Indien de Gemeenschap de goederen of een deel daarvan
 schap over op het land van bestemming op het ogenblik niet op de datum en binnen de termijn bedoeld in artikel 6
 waarop de goederen in de door de Commissie van de Euro kan leveren , kunnen de gemachtigden van de Gemeenschap
 pese Gemeenschappen aangewezen plaats van uitvoer zijn en van het land van bestemming, onverminderd het bepaalde
 gedeponeerd op de door het land van bestemming of zijn in in artikel 4, een nieuwe datum en een nieuwe termijn over
 artikel 2 bedoelde gemachtigde, aangegeven plaats, onder de eenkomen .
 voorwaarden neergelegd in de onderhavige bijlage. Onver
 minderd het bepaalde in de artikelen 7 en 8 komen de kos
 ten tot en met de levering voor rekening van de Gemeen
 schap en de kosten na de levering voor rekening van het HOOFDSTUK III
 land van bestemming.
 Verplichtingen van het land van bestemming
 Artikel 2
 De Gemeenschap wijst voor de uitvoering van de bepalingen Artikel 6
 van deze bijlage — eventueel voor elke partij goederen —
 een gemachtigde aan , wiens naam en adres zij dadelijk na Voor het vervoer stelt het land van bestemming, na hierover
 zijn aanwijzing aan het land van bestemming mededeelt. Het contact met de Gemeenschap te hebben opgenomen, een of
 land van bestemming wijst voor elke haven van inlading een meer schepen beschikbaar, waarvan de afmetingen overeen
 gemachtigde aan , wiens naam en adres het onverwijld en , in komen met de normale mogelijkheden van de haven van in
 dien mogelijk , vóór de aanwijzing van de gemachtigde van lading en die voor belading gereed moeten zijn op een da
 de Gemeenschap aan de Gemeenschap mededeelt. tum binnen de in artikel 3 bedoelde termijn .
 Artikel 3
 De gemachtigde van het land van bestemming deelt deze da
 tum en de datum waarop met de levering moet worden be
 gonnen aan de Gemeenschap mede zodra hij deze data kent,
 Alvorens aan te vangen met de procedure voor de aanwijzing en wel indien mogelijk 20 dagen en in elk geval 10 volle da
 van de in artikel 2 bedoelde gemachtigde van de Gemeen
 gen vóór de datum waarop met de levering moet worden be
 schap, stellen de Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschap
 gonnen .
 pen en het land van bestemming in onderlinge overeen
 stemming de termijn vast waarbinnen met de levering moet Hij bepaalt met de gemachtigde van de Gemeenschap het
 worden begonnen . tempo waarin de levering moet geschieden .
 Artikel 7
 HOOFDSTUK II
 Indien het land van bestemming niet in staat is op de in ar
 Verplichtingen van de Gemeenschap tikel 6, eerste alinea , bedoelde datum met het inladen te be
 ginnen , stelt de gemachtigde van het land van bestemming
 de gemachtigde van de Gemeenschap onverwijld daarvan in
 Artikel 4 kennis .
 Indien de Gemeenschap niet in staat is de levering op de in In dit geval kunnen de gemachtigde van de Gemeenschap en
 artikel 6 bedoelde datum of, in voorkomend geval, in het in de gemachtigde van het land van bestemming een nieuwe
 dat artikel bedoelde tempo te verrichten , komen de voor het datum, waarop met de levering moet worden begonnen , en ,
 land van bestemming eventueel hieruit voortvloeiende kos in voorkomend geval , een ander tempo van levering, over
 ten , met name overliggeld , foutvracht en wanvracht, voor re eenkomen . Behoudens overmacht, komen de uit zulk opont
 kening van de Gemeenschap . houd voortvloeiende kosten voor rekening van het land van
 bestemming.
 De in de overeenkomsten tussen het land van bestemming
 en de vervoerder vastgestelde tarieven en wijze van betaling Indien de nieuwe datum meer dan 30 volle dagen na de in
 van het overliggeld moeten van tevoren tussen het land van artikel 6, eerste alinea , bedoelde datum valt, kan de Gemeen
 bestemming en de gemachtigde van de Gemeenschap zijn schap onverminderd de in artikel I van de Overeenkomst
 overeengekomen . vervatte verplichting, over de goederen beschikken .
 ---pagebreak--- 14. 1 . 75 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen Nr. L 9/25
 Artikel 8 ten die uit het afzien van deze resterende hoeveelheid voort
 vloeien voor haar rekening.
 Indien de voor inlading in een schip bestemde hoeveelheid
 niet geheel aan boord kan worden , gebracht, deelt het land In elk geval wordt, nadat de termijn van 15 volle dagen is
 van bestemming de Gemeenschap zo spoedig mogelijk en verstreken en indien geen bericht van het land van bestem
 uiterlijk 15 volle dagen nadat het inladen is geëindigd mede, ming is ontvangen, dit land geacht van de resterende hoe
 of het voornemens is de resterende hoeveelheid te nemen of veelheid af te zien .
 niet.
 In het eerste geval zijn de bepalingen van artikel 7, tweede Artikel 9
 en derde alinea, van toepassing op deze resterende hoeveel
 heid, indien de levering daarvan nog niet heeft plaatsgevon Bij de levering van de goederen overhandigt het land van be
 den . stemming aan de gemachtigde van de Gemeenschap een be
 wijs van overname met vermelding van de haven van inla
 In het tweede geval mag de Gemeenschap oordelen dat zij de ding, de datum van overname, de aard en de hoeveelheid van
 in artikel I van de Overeenkomst vervatte verplichting jegens de overgenomen goederen en eventuele opmerkingen over
 het land van bestemming is nagekomen en neemt zij de kos de kwaliteit van deze goederen .
 Mededeling over de ondertekening van de Overeenkomst betreffende de levering
 van voedselhulp tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap en de Repu
 bliek India
 De Overeenkomst tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap en de Republiek India
 betreffende de levering van magere-melkpoeder als voedselhulp, tot sluiting waarvan de
 Raad op 21 oktober 1974 heeft besloten , is op 24 oktober 1974 te Brussel ondertekend,
 namens de Raad der Europese Gemeenschappen door de heer Étienne Burin des Roziers,
 Buitengewoon en Gevolmachtigd Ambassadeur, Voorzitter van het Comité van Perma
 nente Vertegenwoordigers, en door de heer Hans-Broder Krohn, Directeur-generaal voor
 Ontwikkelingssamenwerking van de Commissie der Europese Gemeenschappen,
 namens de Regering van de Republiek India door de heer Krishen Behari Lall , Buitenge
 woon en Gevolmachtigd Ambassadeur, Hoofd van de missie van India bij de Europese
 Economische Gemeenschap.


type: wikipedia

text:
Le Théâtre des Halles est une structure théâtrale française implantée à Avignon, dans le Vaucluse. Il a été créé en 1983 sous l’impulsion du metteur en scène Alain Timár. Scène permanente et lieu de spectacles du Festival off d'Avignon, le Théâtre des Halles est situé intra-muros, à proximité de la Place Pie et des Halles d'Avignon, marché provençal d'où il tire son nom.
 Histoire
 Le théâtre se trouve dans les murs d'un ancien couvent de clarisses, fondé en 1239. Un siècle plus tard, c'est en la chapelle du couvent que Pétrarque fit la connaissance de Laure de Noves, qui deviendra sa muse.
 Le lieu
 Fondé par Alain Timár en 1983, le Théâtre des Halles est à la fois un lieu de création et un lieu d’accueil avec une programmation régulière tout au long de l'année. Les spectacles y sont programmés dans deux salles : la salle du Chapitre et la Chapelle Sainte-Claire.
 La Salle du Chapitre
 Principale salle du Théâtre des Halles, elle possède une configuration modulable et d'une capacité d'accueil en gradins allant de 200 à 300 places assises. Son plateau a les dimensions suivantes :
 Largeur : 11m
 Profondeur : 24m
 Hauteur sous grill : 4,8 m.
 Les loges et toilettes attenantes sont accessibles aux handicapés.
 Chapelle Sainte Claire
 Autrefois dédiée à Sainte-Claire d'Assise, cette ancienne chapelle de la Cité des papes est aujourd'hui rattachée au Théâtre des Halles et utilisée comme salle de spectacle. Équipée d'une cinquantaine de places assises, elle accueille les spectacles de petite forme, en particulier durant la programmation du Festival d'Avignon.
 Notes et références
 Voir aussi
 Articles connexes
 Décentralisation théâtrale
 Les Halles d'Avignon
 Festival Off d'Avignon
 Liens externes
 Site officiel du Théâtre des Halles
 Salle de théâtre à Avignon