- The circumstances surrounding the creation of The Center for Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership (CTQEL), the development of its structure, and decisions on staffing, including the hiring of Delegate Phil Hamilton;
- The operations of CTQEL to include:
- Revenues
- Expenditures (particularly personnel and independent contractors)
- Financial interactions between CTQEL and other organizations
- Documentation of CTQEL activities such as job descriptions, scope of work statements, and reports or deliverables (if possible) to determine if CTQEL expenses were supported by demonstrable products and/or benefits, and
- Operational and compliance aspects of CTQEL
While this audit was prompted by the Hamilton scandal, what it revealed about the University was equally damning, although not completely a surprise to me.
In real life, as many of you know, I am a CPA. Until a few years ago, a significant portion of my practice was financial auditing. One of the audits that I performed was for a non-profit organization housed at ODU. Like CTQEL, it had no employees of its own, with personnel being paid either by ODU or the ODU Research Foundation (ODURF). My client had a reimbursement arrangement with ODURF. Between that and other clients I have who are employed by ODU, I’m pretty familiar with how ODU and ODURF interact.
The audit revealed that the state funds received by ODU for CTQEL were received as a part of the general allocation for ODU. Had the money come – as anticipated – as a grant, it would have been run through ODURF; even so, ODU essentially treated it as if it were a grant. The budget was controlled by ODURF employee David Blackburn, who was the director of The Program for Research and Evaluation in Public Schools (PREPS). The CTQEL program itself was treated as an extension of the PREPS program, which was funded mainly by grants.
The audit found that CTQEL had an office that, in the first year, was rarely used and was actually occupied by another entity in the second year. There was no staffing at the office: an administrative assistant for the program was never hired.
Payments to Hamilton and others were made via what is described as “code 4031.” This code is designed to be used for temporary employees, yet Hamilton and 13 others, including 5 University faculty members, were paid using this code. I suspect this problem is much more widespread and would urge ODU to take a closer look at this university-wide.
The audit also found that there was little documentation of work performed by Hamilton and others, as I previously discussed in this post.
What’s clear from the report is that ODU is culpable in the Hamilton situation. Had proper procedures been in place and enforced, the situation could have been avoided. Even so, it doesn’t let Hamilton off the hook. He probably got paid for doing nothing – with our tax dollars – with funds that he helped to secure.
Both Hamilton and ODU should be penalized for this.
UPDATE: Hamilton has released a statement (pdf) responding to the audit. Short version: “I did nothing wrong.”
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I believe some one must be punished for this. Every day brings new revelations.
Hamilton, I believe, will be prosecuted and ODU needs to give the money back to the state.
Wow this really bothers you but you think ACORN is just fine ?
This is the second time you have made a comment that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Either contribute to the conversation or find another place to play.
This is the only warning you’re getting.
[off-topic comment removed – poster has been banned]
Goodbye.
Point of the report seemed to be to lay all the blame for this on Hamilton and Blackburn and clear all the higher-ups at ODU. One essential fact to be garnered out of the report in that no one can substantiate how much, if any, work Hamilton did for his money. However, the whole program was run in pretty lax manner, so Hamilton is not alone in that regard.
I agree that they were trying to clear the higher ups; however, there is no getting around the fact that there was no oversight by the higher ups, particularly the Dean & asst dean, who were the budget officers and who should have been approving the payments.
How were payments being made without proper approval? That’s a pretty big stain on ODU’s controls.
And given my own experience with ODU & ODURF (the stories I could tell), I know this is not the only time this stuff happens.
The Dean was rightfully fired, and that sounds serious enough to not look the other way here.
I agree, Vivian. No oversight is asking for problems.
I don’t think the Dean wasn’t fired. I think he is scheduled to retire at the end of the year, though.
Viv:
One of the reasons I have liked to read and contribute to your blog in the past was that you were not like the hypocrites who infest the darker part of the blogosphere who simply parrot a particular party line, then ban any comments from opposing views. (Hear that, SWAC, BD, etc?)
I have served as an auditor on the federal side and, while ODU’s lack of documentation is a policy violation, it does not prove Hamilton was paid for his vote(s).
In government and non-profit entities, it is relatively common to have people working there who are funded under different accounting lines. A common practice is to form MATRIX teams from employees who are funded by different agencies and have different bosses, to target a particular project, and sometimes, the documentation of what is actually being done is pretty thin.
Does the ODU deal with Hamilton stink of a fee for vote scandal, YES.
Should Hamilton resign, YES. He should step aside and let his side run someone else this year, but, if he is cleared, then he should be welcomed to run again.
Virginia should pass several ethics reforms to help reduce corruption. This is what I suggest:
1. We need a State version of the Hatch Act, that would preclude employees of the State from holding statewide office. A state level bill could also ban the election of contractors who work on State or local contracts. That would vastly narrow the field of potential candidates, but it would greatly diminish avenues for corruption.
2. Eliminate corporate contributions and restrict political contributions to only those by citizens who maintain a residence in the district of the recipient.
3. Limit contributions to state and local candidates to the federal limits imposed on individuals.
As for the temptation to ban those who you disagree with, give the rest of the readers the opportunity to see all ideas and let those ideas be judged under the bright light of the public square.
For example, some readers really hated to read that more Americans died from reactions to aspirin than died in the 9/11 attacks, but that fact, helped many to step back from what had become, frothing at the mouth hysteria, and perhaps some now view the losses from the Attack with a more rational perspective.
I’ve been a federal auditor as well but it was my experience in the private sector that really came into play here. Had I not seen – with my own two eyes – the way ODU and ODURF interact, I would not think things as bad as they are. The use of that 4031 category really jumped out at me.
As for your ideas:
1. As I understand it, the Hatch Act precludes Federal employees from holding partisan jobs, which allows them to serve on city councils, school boards, etc., but not any of the Constitutional jobs. A state version with a similar requirement would work. While I think the contractors’ issue has merit, there would have to be some dollar threshold, ie, if not over XX.
2 & 3 – limits on contributions at the Federal level is already being looked at by the SCOTUS, and could be held unconstitutional (free speech). I don’t see any reasonable way to impose those limits. And limiting contributions only to the district is problematic for a challenger.
Oh – and I don’t ban people I disagree with. In fact, I’ve only ever banned four people, including “Will” above.
Reform Ideas: State Hatch act-this is a good idea. Aside from college professors, I’m not sure who this would impact. I think it would still allow public school teachers to run for the General Assembly, since they are local govt, not state, employees.
I like adopting some contribution limits. Hopefully, someday a more reason-minded SCOTUS will overturn Buckley, which ranks with Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson as one of the court’s more poorly decided cases.
I agree that limiting contributions to the district won’t work.
oops, forgot to say that if Buckley is ever overturned then we could adopt the reform measure that would REALLY control the impact of money on politics, hard spending caps for election to any state office. There’s no reason that it to candidate for the 93rd House District should spend a million dollars between them, which they might this year before it’s all over.
Are there any new polls on this race. Vivian your synopisis of money raised shows Hamilton still raking in the dollars.
Nope, no new polls. And yes, Hamilton is raking in the bucks, from PACs and fellow Republicans.
BTW – here’s an interesting editorial in case you haven’t seen it.
Hamilton is not only raking in the bucks, but he has cornered the volunteers on the Peninsula from the republican party. Oder next door (94th) has had to pay for what volunteers normally do and what Hamilton is getting for free. They (republicans) are circling the wagons around Hamilton. Abbott has done well raising money(not as well as Hamilton) but has alienated the grassroots folks, by her impersonal detachment to the very people she must depend upon, the volunteers.
Hamilton has probably lost the moderates but the rightwingers will vote for him, no matter. Question is, has Abbott alienated enough of the moderate democrats to lose this seat? Same question for Hamilton!
Example, yesterday was Denbigh Days and in the parade, Abbott rode in a convertible, making no contact with voters. Every other politician in that parade was working the crowd, shaking hands, handing out literature, but Abbott. Abbott was detached and impersonal. More concerned with her two foo-foo dogs, than voters.
Because of this scandal, this will be a closer race, than had been previously thought, but Hamilton still has a chance because of Abbott’s rude behaviour to the voters.
Vivian you ban anyone you want, this is YOUR blog and I appreciate you not letting it turn into a town hall meeting!!
It is sad that Phil is able to raise so much money and that people think it is ok, to promise tax payers money to ODU in return for a paycheck he does not even work for. It is sad to see our society become so…….Jerry Springer like!
Based on what has been reported, there is no proof of an exchange of a job for Mr. Hamilton’s vote. Even though there is evidence of mismanagement by ODU, to wit: buying furniture for an unmanned office, hiring and paying a Director without any tangible job performance targets and the co-mingling of assets from the Research Foundation and the University in a way that creates the appearance of either impropriety, or negligence.
Mr. Hamilton, as one of our part-time Delegates, has the right to pursue employment with any agency, under the current rules, without restriction. While his relationship with ODU certainly stinks of the appearance of impropriety, thus far, none has been proved; nor will there likely be any proof.
Should he continue to seek election, one would hope that the citizens will take all of Mr. Hamilton’s record into account, and also consider that his opponent has her own questionable dealings with her former employer at CNU.
While I still think it would be best for Mr. Hamilton to step aside in time for another candidate to run, it is entirely possible that the citizens of the Peninsula are willing to forgive his past dealings and consider his record on balance, to have been beneficial to his constituents and to the Commonwealth.
This is a choice that only his constituents will have to make. Those of us who no longer live in that District can only hope that they choose wisely.
Um, I guess you’ve changed your mind since this comment.
You actually banned someone for asking you if the Hamilton & ODU was worse than the ACORN scandal ? Well i quess everyone sees what type of free speech you promote it must only apply to the comments you agree with.
The fact is, this thread is about Hamilton. If an ACORN thread is started, then by all means comment. I don’t fault Vivian for keeping the mentally challenged on subject. Its her board, and she can run it any way she wants. If you don’t like it, by all means, feel free to go elsewhere and whine.
Dave – you’re new here (unless you are “Will” posting from another IP address). Try looking around. I have no problems allowing comments that I disagree with. In fact, that’s exactly what JTB says above. What I have problems with is a poster’s refusal to stay on point.
What that poster did was ONLY post comments about ACORN, regardless of topic. The first couple I let go thru. After that I warned him to stay on topic. And he didn’t.
My site, my rules.
And don’t go putting words in the mouth of the poster as that was not what he posted. He made a statement about me with no basis whatsoever.
Denbigh Day was actually kind-of embarassing. Abbott only had 2 volunteers walking in the parade; Hamilton had 35! She also blew kisses and waved from her convertible like a busted beauty queen. What a joke.
Actually, I think Abbott was intimidated by the large crowd and visible support for Hamilton. But she left! So much for meeting the common constituent!
Sheila/Matt – both of your comments were posted from the same IP address, which makes me suspect you are the same person. Please pick one handle and stick with it. Thanks.
Actually we live in the same house and sometimes use the same computer. However, we have our own thoughts that are sometimes the same and sometimes differ. Thanks detective.
Being kind of rude for being a guest here, aren’t you Matt?
It takes vigilance to keep the illiterati at bay sometimes.
One does not have to be a detective – it’s my blog. I see a lot of information on the back end.
And there is no need to be rude.
Well, as a new user, I felt somewhat attacked by your initial comment. You made a negative assumption that was not valid. I didn’t realize that this site was so censored.
Actually, it wasn’t an attack, which is why I said “makes me suspect.” And I even said thanks.
BTW that’s not censoring. I just try to keep the conversation honest. There’s a term for people posting under multiple handles – sock puppetry – and I try to watch out for it because it gives the wrong impression.
(If you are new to blogs, you should know that when you post, the blog owner can see a lot of information about you. And some blogs (I’ve never done it) will post that information publicly.)