WIT's controversial spending raised in audit

THE WATERFORD Institute of Technology features on a number of occasions in the latest report from the Comptroller Auditor General on the educational sector.

The report by John Buckley includes comments on controversial expenditure by the office of the former president of the institute, Kieran Byrne, as well as the fortunes of its fundraising foundation, now defunct, and the way it produces its financial accounts.

Mr Buckley’s audit and an investigation initiated by the institute found examples of breaches of procedures and “lack of economy” in transactions administered through the WIT president’s office. A review commissioned by the institute’s governing council of non-pay expenses incurred by the office of the president in the period January 2004 to March 2011 found “examples of expenditure on hospitality (for example, €18,452 on flowers and €3,067 on gifts) where insufficient details were provided or monetary limits were breached which is not compliant with the institute’s hospitality policy”.

It also found that services such as taxis, public relations and marketing were being procured without the proper procedures being adhered to, and that the use of taxis rather than public transport might be considered in breach of the institute’s travel policy.

Mr Buckley was told that two instances were discovered where the credit card of the office was used for non-institute purposes. “The former president, when advised, reimbursed the appropriate amounts in full.”

The credit card had been cancelled since May 2011.

The results of the review caused “serious disquiet” and a report was submitted to the Higher Education Authority.

The accountancy firm that carried out the review was asked in June 2011 to review all expenditure by the office of the president over a two-year period. This report has yet to be presented to the institute’s governing authority.

Mr Buckley’s report said that most universities and institutes of education include the results of subsidiary companies in consolidated statements of account. However, WIT and the Athlone Institute of Education had companies supplying campus services whose accounts were not incorporated in those of the institutes.

Mr Buckley concluded that all such companies’ accounts should be consolidated into those of their educational institutions. “The maximum transparency and comparability across institutions should be sought in this process.”

In WIT, a company, WIT Diverse Campus Services Ltd, and five of its subsidiaries, were involved in the delivery of services such as canteen facilities, student residences and a sports hall.

The WIT president was chairman of the boards of these companies though the acting president who took up office in May 2011 had not accepted a directorship of any of the companies.

Mr Buckley was told the accounts are not consolidated as the company and its subsidiaries are not owned by the institute and are independent of it.

The chief executive of the company is an employee of WIT who is on secondment and receives a lecturer’s salary and an “acting up” allowance from the company that places him on a pay level equal to that of a head of department at the institute.

The report notes that in 2007 WIT received €1 million from AIB to be used to support widening participation in education.

A newly formed WIT foundation was given €400,000 of the money to meet set-up and initial costs. A year later it got a further grant of €100,000, and by the end of that year the funds had been spent. The foundation has been wound up.