Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism’s Administration of Regional Tourism Grant Awards
February 13, 2017 · Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published February 13, 2017 Audit covers July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Based on our audit, we have concluded that for the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015, MOTT had established adequate controls and complied with applicable laws and regulations for the areas we reviewed.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state audit of how the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism handled grant money given to regional tourism councils during fiscal year 2015.
“In this performance audit, we examined MOTT’s controls over the grant awards it made to regional tourism councils (RTCs) for the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.”
Auditors checked whether grant money was protected from being spent on banned items like travel, entertainment, or equipment.
“Our objective was to determine whether MOTT ensured that grant funds were not used for travel, entertainment, or equipment purchases, in accordance with Section 14 of Chapter 23A of the General Laws.”
The grants involved public money used to promote tourism across Massachusetts, so lawmakers and residents need to know whether the money was handled properly.
“In fiscal year 2015, MOTT distributed $5 million in grant awards to the 16 RTCs to support advertising, marketing, and administration.”
Tourism supports jobs, wages, and tax revenue in Massachusetts, so good oversight of tourism grants affects the public interest.
“According to MOTT’s website, during calendar year 2014 tourism generated $1.2 billion in state and local taxes and $19.5 billion in travel-related expenditures, which supported 132,000 jobs within the Commonwealth that totaled $4.1 billion in salaries and wages.”
Auditors did not find major problems in the grant spending controls they reviewed, but they flagged late or missing required reports.
“We did not identify any significant deficiencies in those areas.”
After the audit, MOTT filed the overdue annual report and reported the $9,000 in unaccounted-for grant funds to the State Auditor.
“As a result of our audit, MOTT filed the required fiscal year 2015 annual report with the Massachusetts House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means on November 17, 2016.”
The main policy significance is that late reporting can leave legislators without timely information when deciding how to fund the tourism grant program.
“Without timely reporting, the Legislature may not have had adequate information to make informed decisions about appropriations for this grant program.”
MOTT means the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism, and RTCs are regional nonprofit tourism groups that market different parts of the state.
“Each region is marketed by a regional tourism council (RTC), an independent, membership-based, nonprofit organization.”
1 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Complied Did MOTT ensure that grants awarded to RTCs were not spent on travel, entertainment, or equipment purchases, in accordance with Section 14 of Chapter 23A of the General Laws?
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: Without timely reporting, the Legislature may not have had adequate information to make informed decisions about appropriations for the grant program.
Standard: Section 14 of Chapter 23A of the Massachusetts General Laws ( Section 14 of Chapter 23A of the Massachusetts General Laws )
1 recommendation
- MOTT should take measures necessary, such as developing policies and procedures, to ensure that it annually reports on Regional Tourism Grant Program activities to the Legislature in a timely manner.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "MOTT officials stated that the agency had prepared a draft copy of the report, but explained that because of a change in senior management and competing business priorities, the report was not finalized and submitted to the Legislature until November 2016, after the audit team raised this matter with MOTT’s executive director."
Auditor: "In the opinion of the Office of the State Auditor (OSA), MOTT should have submitted the report to the House and Senate Committees on Ways and Means as soon as this information was available after the end of fiscal year 2015."
Why it matters: OSA could not take timely action to resolve the matter as required by law.
Standard: Section F of Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 ( Section F of Chapter 647 of the Acts of 1989 )
1 recommendation
- MOTT should file the required Chapter 647 report with OSA.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Additionally, they stated that since this loss was incurred by an RTC’s customer, not directly by MOTT, they did not know whether a Chapter 647 filing was necessary."
Auditor: "MOTT officials filed the required report immediately, in November 2016."