[Previous entry: "Council Votes To Fund Orcas Rec If Necessary"] [Next entry: "DOE Considers Allowing Reclaiming Of Wastewater (Not from septic fields)"]

05/18/2010: "State Audit Slams Ruckelshaus & Puget Sound Partnership"

The State Auditor’s first report on the Puget Sound Partnership’s (Partnership) accountability and compliance with state laws and regulations and the policies and procedures of the Partnership was recently completed, and not all is well -to be kind- with the leadership of the Partnership..

As one local observer of the Partnership put it, “[the] Partnership, the WA State agency created in 2007 to clean up Puget Sound, was lambasted last week in a scathing State Auditor's Report.”

The audit concentrated on two “identified conditions significant enough to report as findings:

The Puget Sound Partnership circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds.

The Puget Sound Partnership failed to enforce the terms of its agreements with a foundation it created, incurring costs without clear public benefit.”

In addition to the stated lack of financial controls, in 2008 the Partnership created The Foundation for Puget Sound as a “private, non-profit” group to receive donations “promoting and supporting activities that further the public purposes of the Puget Sound Partnership..”; spending just under a quarter million dollars to hire a private law firm “to establish the Foundation.”

Ruckelshaus was listed as Vice President in the registration of the Foundation with the Sectary of State.

The Partnership paid into the Foundation a total of $167,341.00 for consulting and legal fees, including nearly $20,000.00 for a “documentary film” for public television. After paying to set up how the Foundation and the Partnership would work together, the audit states the Partnership then “failed to enforce the terms of its agreements with the Foundation.”

The Partnership was back-and-forth on awarding matching funds to the Foundation, but ended up giving nearly $90,000.00 to the Foundation without any match by the Foundation. Based on recent research into the Foundation, it appears it may no longer be active.

Here are some of the highlights of the low points of how the Partnership has been spending millions of state and federal money, and conducting itself in terms of enforcing controls on expenditures, some of which the audit states may have no direct or “clear public benefit”:

The audit reports that the Partnership structured the dollar amounts of some contracts “to avoid advertising or following competitive procurement requirements,” and paid more than necessary for some of the services and goods it received:

* Overpaying unapproved vendors by 50% for computer systems. “Hewlitt Packard or Dell would cost $25,000 to $28,000. Apple Macintosh costs were determined to be $42,000;” but the “Apple Macintosh hardware and software is not compatible with statewide information systems..”

* $300 per hour open-scope consultancies awarded without competitive application or paper trails

* $2,474 in catering for a private reception in direct violation of state regulations

* $8,600 for one digital camera for staff use.

* $6,853 for 120 monogrammed fleece vests, and $5,044 for 30 monogrammed jackets.

* Thousands more for custom lip balm and personalized, engraved mahogany gift boxes containing bottles of sparkling apple cider

* $10,000 for a membership to the Cascade Land Conservancy; Illegally gifting government resources to private and unknown individuals

* Overpaying staff by 20 to 40%, with average annual salary last year $20,000 more than at the state's other natural -resource agencies- $75,000 a year at the Partnership versus $53,000 at others.

As the summary of the report states, The audit of the Partnership is only a snapshot,the Auditor’s office does not “examine every transaction, activity or area. Instead, the areas examined were those representing the highest risk of noncompliance, misappropriation or misuse.”

The Partnership responded to the audit, stating the Partnership “fully recognizes that improvement in the Partnership’s compliance and accountability mechanisms must be strengthened. Even prior to your audit, agency staff has been directed to establish the proper procedures and accountability mechanisms that have been recommended”.

And the Auditor then responded to the Partnership that they “appreciate the Partnership’s commitment to resolving the identified weaknesses. We will follow up with the Partnership at a later date to determine what corrective actions have been taken.”