Appendices
The printed audit contains the following
three appendices:
Appendix I: The D.C. Public Library
Purchase Requests for Fiscal Year 1996 [on] Which the Library's Procurement Staff Failed
to Take Any Action
Appendix II: Donation form for the D.C.
Public Library Foundation
Appendix III: District of Columbia
Public Library Foundation, Inc. Balance Sheets, October 31, 1994 & 1995
It also contains the following two agency
responses, from Michael R. Winston, President of the D.C. Public Library Foundation, Inc.,
and Mary E. Raphael, Acting Director of the D.C. Public Library.
Back to
beginning of audit
THE ALFRED HARCOURT FOUNDATION
SUITE 503
8401 COLESVILLE ROAD
SILVER SPRING. MARYLAND 20910-3352
TELEPHONE (301) 589-1551 FACSIMILE (301) 589-1552
September 11, 1997
Mr. Anthony S. Cooper
District of Columbia Auditor
The Presidential Building
415 Twelfth Street, N.W., Room 210
Washington, D. C. 20004
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Thank you for your letter of September 3, 1997 and the enclosed draft
report entitled "Audit of the District of Columbia Public Library~s Procurement and
Financial Management Practices and the Library's Relationship with the District of
Columbia Public Library Foundation."
I also want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft
report.
With respect to those sections of the report that refer to the District of
Columbia Public Library Foundation, I have found no erroneous statements. There is,
however, some ambiguity in the interpretation of the word "independent" as it
appears in the last full paragraph on page 32.
As the report indicates, the Library and the Foundation work together to
promote the Library. The Trustees of the Public Library are responsible for the Library
programs and management. The Foundation raises funds to support programs approved by the
Trustees, and in that sense does not act "independently" of the Library or its
trustees. It is, however, independent in raising funds, consistent with its obligations as
a 501(c)(3) organization. The intent of the statement in the minutes of the Board of
Directors meeting on February 5, 1997 was to make it clear that the Foundation does not
have program objectives that are independent of Library programs approved by the Trustees
of the Library. In that limited sense, the Foundation is not independent. It must, of
course, be independent in fund-raising and management to satisfy the requirements for tax
exemption under the Internal Revenue Service Code.
As I understand the report's conclusions with respect to the relationship
between the Library and the Foundation, no improprieties were found. It would seem to me
fair to make such a declarative statement at the end of the section of the report
concerning the Foundation.
If you have any questions or comments about my observations in this
letter, I would be pleased to respond. I may be reached at my office, (301) 589 1551.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Winston
President
Back to
beginning of audit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC LIBRARY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
MARY E. RAPHAEL
ACTING DIRECTOR
September 26, 1997
Anthony S. Cooper, District of Columbia Auditor
The Presidential Building
415 12th Street, N.W., Room 210
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Please find attached the Public Library's response to the draft report
entitled, "Audit of the District of Columbia Public Library's Procurement and
Financial Management Practices and the Library's Relationship with the District of
Columbia Public Library Foundation."
We appreciate having an opportunity to review the findings and
recommendations. As you know from the first telephone conversation we had about this
audit, we intended to be fully cooperative and supportive of your review. When I became
Acting Director in late February 1997, I made procurement reform and the improvement of
our financial performance my top priorities. Although we believed at that time that we had
already identified many of the problems in the procurement and financial management
arenas, we also anticipated that your assistance in clarifying the issues and recommending
solutions would be helpful to us. We now appreciate that our initial expectations were
confirmed by your report.
You will see in our response that we have implemented many of the reforms
recommended in the Audit. In fact, some of these were implemented several months ago. The
recommendations in the audit reinforced our decisions regarding the steps that are needed
for procurement and financial management reform.
I also want to express our appreciation for the professional manner
exhibited by W. Donald Wright, who conducted the field work for the Audit. We regret that
we were unable to find some of the documents that he requested. We too wish that we had
complete procurement files available for FY 1996 and the first half of FY 1997. These
would have made our job of procurement reform easier.
We look forward, as we are sure you do, to continuing improvements and
full implementation of the Audit recommendations.
cc: Joyce Clements-Smith
Michael Carowitz
Very truly yours,
Mary Raphael, Acting Director
Back to
beginning of audit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC LIBRARY
RESPONSE TO
"AUDIT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC LIBRARY'S
PROCUREMENT AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
AND
THE LIBRARY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION"
The response to the draft report entitled "Audit of the District of Columbia
Public Library's Procurement and Financial Management Practices and the Library's
Relationship with the District of Columbia Public Library Foundation" is organized in
the following manner:
- The Introduction will highlight significant progress that the Library has made in the
areas of procurement and financial management since the Audit was conducted.
- Sections I and II: The Findings and Recommendations will each be addressed individually
and will be organized by the same Roman numerals, letters, etc. that appear in the text of
the Audit. The Library's response in Section I is in italics Since Section II had
no Findings or Recommendations, the Library's comments are not in italics there.
- The Conclusion will identify opportunities for improvement which require additional
attention in order to continue addressing operational improvements in the critical areas
of procurement and financial management.
INTRODUCTION
The Public Library has made significant progress in a variety of areas that were
addressed by the audit. Since the scope of the Audit covered Fiscal Years 1995, 1996, and
up to June 1997, this response can identify those actions and initiatives which either
were in progress at the time the field work for the Audit was conducted (April - July) or
have been implemented since that time.
Major changes in personnel have taken place between January and August 1997. On January
31, 1997, the Director retired and Chief Procurement Officer resigned. On February 19,
1997, the Deputy Director, who also was the Library's Chief Contracting Officer and had
oversight for the Procurement Department and the Budget and Fiscal Department, resigned to
accept a position in another city. On August 18, 1997, the Head of the Budget and Fiscal
Department, whose responsibilities until August 1, 1996 had included providing oversight
for procurement, was transferred to another agency within DC Government by the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer.
The Board of Library Trustees appointed the Acting Director, effective February 20,
1997, and is currently engaged in a nationwide search for a new permanent Director.
The "Procurement Reform Amendment Act of 1996" as well as the report released
by the Financial Authority on January 31, 1997 entitled "District of Columbia's
Procurement System" provided a constantly changing environment for the Library's own
procurement reform efforts. The process involved in implementing procurement reform at the
government-wide level at times assisted us in our efforts but also created
uncertainty and ambiguity. Nevertheless, we believe that we have dramatically improved
Library operations in the area of procurement from that which the Audit reviewed and
reported.
PROCUREMENT
The Audit thoroughly investigated the state of the procurement operations at the
Library, however, significant steps to reform procurement have been taken during the past
six months. On March 31, 1997, the Acting Chief Contracting Officer delivered to the
Acting Director a report entitled "Procurement Reform in the District of Columbia
Public Library: A Preliminary Analysis with Recommendations". This report described
the complete disarray of the procurement office during an internal investigation made from
mid-February to mid-March. The Procurement Reform Report was widely distributed not only
to those directly involved in Library operations but also to the community and the press.
It is important to review the findings in that report in order to understand not only how
much progress we have made but also how badly broken the system was. Findings noted in the
Audit about the lack of procurement files were also noted in the Library's internal review
in March. The severe underspending in FY 1996, when added to the inadequate procurement
effort during the first five months of FY 1997, meant that the Library had to climb out of
a very deep hole in order to have the procurement function operating smoothly again. This
effort had to take place in an environment with multi-level approvals required for
purchases in an ever-changing environment as DC Government began implementing a new
procurement law.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The Library management has worked closely with Office of the Chief Financial Officer
and the subordinate Deputy CFO's to improve financial performance. Throughout FY 1997, we
continued to be hampered by the lack of reliable, timely, and detailed financial
information. In addition, the invoices which were awaiting payment because authorizing
purchase orders were not in the Financial Management System (FMS) had an effect on all
financial operations throughout the fiscal year. Vendors who were owed money would not
continue to do business with the Library. While most of these vendors have now been paid,
Library management expects that the long- term impact from these late and delayed payments
may affect our operations at least during FY 1998.
SECTION I
I. WEAK INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER PROCUREMENT AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
WITHIN THE D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY
A. The Library Underspent its FY 1996 Appropriated Budget BY $899.787 While Having
$304,683 in Unpaid Vendor Invoices and Approximately 300 Unfilled Purchase Requests For
Goods and Services
Response: The Library held back spending for the first six months of the fiscal year
in order to cover the unfunded costs of pay adjustments for employees which had been
negotiated city-wide. Funding for these pay increases was expected in a central allocation
from the Mayor's Budget Of fice. When other agencies received an allocation for this
purpose during the first quarter of the fiscal year, the Public Library did not. After
major efforts by the Library and the Friends of the Library, one million dollars was
finally added by the Financial Authority in a resolution adopted on March 29, 1997. The
funding was loaded in FMS when the last quarter of the FY budget was loaded in late June.
The underspending was primarily in areas (supplies, equipment, and building maintenance)
where spending had been held back in order to have sufficient funds in the overall budget
to balance projected overspending in the personal services budget needed to cover the
unfunded pay adjustment.
The Library's procurement office was unable to respond to the need to accelerate
purchasing by filling the backlog of requests for purchases from the first six months. The
pressure to accelerate spending was compounded by the fact that virtually a full year's
purchases were compressed into the second ha lf of the fiscal year since Library
management had limited spending for the first six months in order to ensure a balanced
budget. Nevertheless, the challenge to accelerate spending was not met, and management
officials did not make the necessary adjustment to accommodate these circumstances.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Library review its system of internal accounting and procurement
controls to ensure that available funding levels and expenditure levels are periodically
monitored to prevent overspending or severely underspending of its budgeted resources.
Response: The lack of reliable, timely, and detailed financial
information from the Budget and Fiscal Department for program managers and top executive
staff has contributed to many of the financial difficulties of the Public Library during
the period covered by the Audit. Library officials have been working with Library's
financial office as well as the various offices under the Chief Financial Officer to
correct this problem. A reporting system at detailed budgetary levels will be implemented
in FY 1998 with as much information as is available from the FMS. Lack of reliable reports
in FY 1997 as well as FY 1996, however, has continued to make budget implementation very
difficult.
2. The Library review its procurement operations, establish or strengthen
its controls to ensure that all purchase requests for goods and services are logged in,
disseminated to procurement staff, acted upon in a timely manner, and reported on in
monthly status reports. Periodically, management must review status reports on all
purchase requests to determine what actions, if any, had been taken on the requests.
Response: On March 31, 1997, the Library published a complete
assessment of the breakdown of the procurement function entitled "Procurement Reform
in the District of Columbia Public Library: A Preliminary Analysis with
Recommendations". This report identified many of the same issues described in the
Audit. The report, which was widely distributed, defined the path that we planned to take
to recovery. The process has been extremely demanding because of the ripple effect of the
severe underspending in FY 1996 and the lack of systematic procurement during the first
half of FY 1997. We have made steady progress in our efforts to reform procurement and
expect that the process will be dramatically improved in FY 1998. The Acting Director, who
assumed her responsibilities in late February 1997, made procurement reform her top
priority. The Acting Chief Contracting Officer made significant strides toward reaching
the goals of procurement reform as noted in the "Executive Summary" from the
March 31, 1996 report (Attachment 1).
A written monthly reporting system for procurement, which provides the
status of purchase requests to department heads, was implemented in July 1997. In
addition, procurement staff and program staff regularly communicate directly with each
other on the status of individual requests when needed Copies of approved purchase orders
are distributed to the appropriate department head, who often serves as contract monitor,
as well as to vendors.
B. The Library Failed to Pay $304.683 in Fiscal Year 1996 Vendor
Invoices Which Must Now Be Paid From Its Fiscal Year 1997 Budget
Response: The total of $304,683 includes $200,337.64 which was booked
as an outstanding liability in the closing of FY 1996 as "X' vouchers. This amount
has just recently been released and paid to the vendors who had billed the Library through
emergency legislation, DC Act 12-102, the "District of Columbia Public Library Vendor
Payment Emergency Act of 1997." These invoices were, in fact, charged to BY 1996;
documentation supporting this assertion is provided in Attachment 2.
The remaining amount of $104,345.28 needs to be verified as valid
invoices; this is being addressed under the legislation described above. When and if they
are verified, the Audit is correct in stating that these invoices will be charged to FY
1997.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Library enforce its own internal procurement regulations and
District Financial Management and Control Order No. 96-02 to ensure that contracts and
purchase orders are established before goods and services are ordered, and that obligating
documents (contracts and purchase orders), are timely entered into the District's
Financial Management System.
Response: The Library's procurement reform plan began addressing this
recommendation immediately. Most direct, one-time orders met the required procurement
regulations beginning in March In the case of ongoing delivery of goods and services,
corrective action was initiated as soon as we realized there was a problem. The current
Library management believes that we now have eliminated these unauthorized purchases.
Instructions to Library employees regarding the requirement for Authorized purchase orders
to be in place prior to any purchase has been communicated to staff many times over the
past six months and was repeated in writing in a memorandum to all staff on September 5,
1997.
2. The Library progressively discipline employees who order goods and
services without authority and without approved contracts and purchase orders which have
been properly entered into the District's Financial Management System.
Response: The Acting Director has issued a written reminder to all
staff which states that employees who violate this directive will be subject to
disciplinary action. The memorandum requires all supervisors to ensure that all
subordinate staff have read and understood the memorandum. While we believe that
unauthorized purchases are no longer being made by staff; this memorandum will provide
added support for any future disciplinary actions.
3. The Library obtain solicited quotations from at least three
sources when using its small purchasing procedures contracting authority.
Response: The Library's top management's focus on procurement reform
has resulted in significant improvements since its own internal assessment was completed
at the end of March 1997. These improvements can be documented both within the Library, by
reviewing purchasing and contracting files, as well as by understanding the process which
is in place across the District Government for external approval of ALL purchases. Even
when the Library has a genuine emergency, we must submit our request with supporting
documentation for external review.
We have worked closely with those leading the procurement reform effort
for the District Government, first when Larry King, Deputy City Administrator for Public
Management, was designated as the District's Acting Chief Procurement Officer and now with
Richard Fite, Director of the Department of Administrative Services and Chief Procurement
Officer for the District. The Library's Acting Chief Contracting Officer attends weekly
meetings convened by Mr. Fite for Chief Procurement Officers from DC Government agencies.
Mr. Fite is currently evaluating the Library's request to review the position description
and qualifications for for a permanent Chief Procurement Officer for the Library. Requests
for review and approval of the positron have been raised several times over the past five
months; each time the Library was asked to postpone filling the position and to continue
working with temporary employees. These employees have strong procurement backgrounds and
experience and have been providing the Library with very competent work in the area of
procurement.
C. The Library's Procurement Office Failed to Process Over 300
Approved Internal Purchase Requests for Goods and Services Before the Close Of Fiscal Year
1996
Response: The Procurement Reform Report described above noted this
backlog in its assessment. Those requests formed the basis for the purchases during the
second half of FY 1997, after each request had been reviewed by the appropriate department
head to determine that the goods or services were still needed. Department heads were
asked to prioritize their requests so that the procurement staff could fill those
determined to be most critical first. Unfortunately, the severe backlog of requests
created inordinate demands on the procurement staff. Even with increased hiring of
temporary staff in procurement, the demand exceeded our ability to fill requests as
quickly as would have been desired This factor was evident throughout the entire fiscal
year and was inevitable, given the 18 months that had preceded the- reform effort. In
addition, the budget was insufficient in some areas to fill fill the backlog of requests.
RECOMMENDATION
The Library establish a standard reporting format outlining purchase
requests received in its procurement office and current status of the requests, and
periodically, not less than monthly, disseminate the report to all management staff.
Response: Monthly reports began being issued by the Acting Chief
Contracting Officer July 1997. These reports are distributed to all department heads. In
addition, department heads communicate regularly with procurement staff regarding any new
requests which are urgent as well as the status of pending requests. The information
provided on these monthly reports may be revised as department heads recommend what
additional information they would like to have. A sample page of one of these monthly
reports is provided in Attachment 3.
D) The Library Continued Ordering Goods and Services in Fiscal Year
1997 Without Establishing Contracts and Purchase Orders
Response: The Library did have a large number of invoices for goods and
services purchased without authorizing purchase orders in FMS. This fact was identified
immediately when the procurement reform effort began. We sought to address the problem in
a systematic manner. First, we instructed department heads who in turn instructed their
subordinate employees to cease from this practice immediately. Then, the Aching Director
wrote to both the Chief Financial Officer and the Financial Authority describing the scope
of the problem and requested assistance in addressing it. After several weeks of exploring
options to address this problem which threatened to disable the Library's ability to
deliver library services, we concluded that the only viable opinion was to request special
legislation as other DC Government entities had in prior years. The emergency legislation
was introduced by the Chair of the Council Committee on Education, Libraries, and
Recreation and was adopted on June 3, 1997. It became law on July 2, 1997. Most payments
permitted under this legislation have been made, totaling over one million dollars
including the amount charged against the FY 1996 retainage (approximately $200,000) as
well as FY 1997. Since a narrow interpretation of Act 12-102 meant a March 1, 1997 ending
date for receipt of goods and services, goods and services ordered before March 1st but
received after that date were not covered by the legislation. To correct this problem, the
Council moved to amend the legislation on September 22nd to cover goods and services which
had been back ordered, etc. and were therefore received after March 1st. That legislation,
when and if it is approved by the Mayor and the Financial Authority, will permit the
Library to finish finish paying for the unauthorized purchases from FY 1997. FY 1996
invoices noted in item I-B have been processed under Act 12-102.
RECOMMENDATION
The Library notify its vendors, by formal letter, that it will not honor
or pay any invoices unless they are supported by approved purchase orders and contracts
issued by an authorized official at the Library. The letter should include the names and
titles of all Library officials authorized to issue purchase orders and contracts.
Response: Vendors who do business with the Library vary from year to
year. We will seriously consider how we can implement this recommendation, but it may not
be possible to send such a notice to all vendors since new vendors are eligible for
Library business. Purchase orders issued by the Library now include the name(s) of the
authorized "ordering officers". Since this list varies depending on the scope
and nature of the purchase order, it is not practical to include this information in a
general letter to vendors. A sample of the instructions is provided in Attachment 4.
E. The Library Exceeded the Spending Ceiling Established on a Firm
Fixed-Price Contract By $79.590 By Submitting Two Purchase Orders For the Same Contract
Response: The Library is working diligently to see that actions such as
this no longer occur. The reason that two purchase orders were established for the same
contract is not known by current Library of ficials, and there is no documentation in the
files to explain the action. According to the Library's financial staff; the Library
received permission from the Controller's Office to pay invoices under $2, 500 from book
vendors under the VMSE payment voucher process at the end of FY 1996. Documentation
supporting this approval is being submitted with this report.
RECOMMENDATION
The Library assign contract monitors to all contracts with the
responsibility to include, but not be limited to, ensuring that spending against the
contract does not exceed the contract ceiling.
Response: This recommendation has already been partially implemented;
it will be implemented with all contracts and blanket purchase agreements in FY 1998. The
success that the Library has in using contract monitors to control spending could be
greatly enhanced with wider access to expenditure information in FMS. The Library
anticipates having this access available to department heads during the first quarter of
FY 1998.
F) The Library Exceeded a Sole Source Contract Award Ceiling by
$82.245.83 And Its Contract Files Did Not Contain Supporting Documentation
Response: The Library has over 100 vendors for books and other library
materials that it uses on an annual basis. We are working with the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer and the Of Dice of the Chief Procurement Officer to develop effective
and efficient ways to purchase copyrighted materials. Total expenditures in this area are
approximately $2.5 million annually. We plan to establish blanket purchase agreements with
these vendors in the future to avoid a recurrence of this Finding Contract files which
were found to be "materially deficient and void of critical information" are no
longer characteristic of the Library's procurement office. Full and complete files are the
norm. The deficiencies in Library contract files covered by the Audit were noted in the
Library's procurement reform report published on March 31, 1997. The Library's Acting
Chief Contracting Officer (CCO) could not respond to the Auditor's request for files
because the CCO could not locate them either in the office of the former CCO, who resigned
on January 31, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION
The Library review its internal procurement controls and training for
procurement employees to ensure that all contract files contain a complete history of the
contract with all supporting documentation, and that employees are properly trained in the
maintenance of contractual files.
Response: Compete files files are maintained in the procurement office
for all purchases. These files now include, but are not limited to: Purchase Order
forms, Small Purchase Summary forms, Request for Purchase Order Override forms, and
Obligation Authorizing forms. Files for larger purchases also include the Request for
Proposals documents, signed bid submissions, Determination and Findings (if needed), and
Negotiation Notes (if appropriate).
The Library is working closely with Richard File, Chief Procurement
Officer, and his staff on the procurement reform effort underway in DC Government. We
expect to continue to implement improvements, including providing appropriate training for
our procurement staff
G) The Library Incurred $107.358.66 In Expenditures Before the Contract
Was Officially Approved and Accepted Into the District's Financial Management System
Response: The contract in question was one for maintenance on the
Library's on-line catalog and circulation system. The problems with procurement during the
first half of FY 1997 included the failure of the Library's then Head of Procurement to
establish standard maintenance contracts at the beginning of the f seal year. The vendor
in question, the developer of the Library's turnkey system, had been supporting the
Library's automation system for many years and had continued providing that service. When
the Acting Director and Acting Chief Contracting Officer discovered that the maintenance
agreement was nod in place and was not supported by a purchase order, immediate action was
taken to correct the situation. The approval process required that the maintenance
contract and accompanying purchase order receive approvals outside the Library; these
approvals were received only because we were able to establish the critical nature of the
maintenance service to Library operations and mission.
RECOMMENDATION
Library officials review internal controls to ensure that recurring
maintenance contracts are properly approved and obligating documents (Purchase orders and
contracts) are entered into FMS at the beginning of each fiscal year.
Response: On September 5, 1997, the Library's Acting Chief Contracting
Officer issued a memorandum to staff entitled "FY 1997 Close-Out & FY 1998
Procurement Planning" (Attachment 5). This document describes the steps that need to
be taken for FY 1998 and has a spreadsheet appended that lists all existing contracts and
agreements with expiration dates. It also designates the Library program departments
responsible for initiating the request for renewal. The procurement office has been
receiving requests generated by this memorandum and is developing the documents needed to
ensure that these requests become purchase orders and are submitted for approval in a
timely manner.
H) The Library Failed to Spend $500.000 in Capital Budget Authority And
the District Rescinded the Authority
Response: The Library, for the first time in its history, had been
given capital budget implementing authority under the FY 1992 Supplemental Budget.
Prior to this action by the Council, the Library's capital projects had always been
implemented by the Department of Public Works. This new capital authority did not receive
any financing at first, but it finally received partial financing in FY 1 994 of
$175,000 from a bond issue which was sold in the Summer of 1994. The Library's Head of the
Budget and Fiscal Department did not respond to repeated requests from internal library
officials to work with the Mayor's Capital Budget Office to establish the spending
authority in FMS Without the budget establishment, it was not possible for
"obligating documents (purchase orders) " to be established. The financing and
the total authority lapsed because the budget was never established in EMS. Unfortunately,
this authority was and still is needed.
RECOMMENDATION
The Library do advanced planning, review and establish FMS procedures for
entering capital budget spending data to ensure that future capital budgeting authority is
timely spent.
Response: Most capital projects for the Library are implemented by the
Department of Public Works. The inaction which resulted in the lapse of the authority and
financing has not been a problem with DPW implemented projects. If we are fortunate enough
to receive capital implementing authority again, we are determined to make sure that the
budget is properly established so that it can be expended
SECTION II
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY AND THE D.C. PUBLIC
LIBRARY FOUNDATION
The Audit Report contained no findings or recommendations under this
heading. The Library offers some clarifying information and comments for the record.
The Library is not surprised to see that concerns which might be inferred
from the first eight objectives of the Audit, which relate to the Library-Foundation
relationship, produced no evidence on improprieties. The Foundation operates as a separate
entity, but its purpose of supporting the programs and services of the Public Library
clearly makes these two entities work closely together.
The Library itself, the Foundation, and indeed the Friends of the Library
groups offer different opportunities for individuals, corporations, and organizations to
support public library services in the District of Columbia. We do not compete with each
other but work in harmony.
The Audit includes a listing of checks written by the Foundation between
9/30/95 and 12/31/96 on Table m. A number of the checks made payable to individuals are
persons who work at the Library as employees or consultants. Documentation supporting the
fact that these checks were for reimbursements and/or grants for specific purposes is
being submitted with this response in order to avoid the possible implication that these
checks were additional payments for work performed by these individuals. These records, in
some cases with additional receipts, are maintained by the Foundation; we submit these
copies for your information.
CONCLUSION
The procurement reform effort will continue in FY1998. We will work to see that
recommendations from the Audit are implemented.
In FY 1998, renewed efforts to address weaknesses in the financial management of the
Library will be made. We will continue working with the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer to strengthen financial management and to ensure that the financial information
that Library executives and managers need to carry out their responsibilities is
available. This information is essential for accountability. |
