Roxbury Community College

This is a 2012 letter from the Massachusetts State Auditor to Roxbury Community College’s Board of Trustees about problems found after allegations from two RCC employees.

“During our fiscal year 2011 audit of student financial assistance programs conducted in conjunction with the Commonwealth’s Single Audit,1 the Office of the State Auditor was notified by two employees of Roxbury Community College (RCC) of noncompliance allegations that had purportedly occurred at RCC.”

The review happened because two RCC employees made signed whistleblower allegations about possible noncompliance and other improper actions at the college.

“The eight allegations, documented in signed statements, were presented to RCC in accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts “Whistleblowing Law” (Chapter 149, Section 185, of the Massachusetts General Laws).”

The issues matter because they involved campus safety reporting, student financial aid, academic records, program approvals, hiring, employee schedules, and a daycare contract.

“These allegations concerned RCC’s: noncompliance with the federal Clery Act, improper awarding of a Presidential Scholarship, failure to implement changes stated in RCC’s response to the May 2007 federal audit, grade changes affecting financial aid, noncompliance with federal regulations requiring Board of Education approval for new certificate programs, improper hiring of an employee, overlapping of work/class schedules for a full-time employee, and a contract executed with a day care center not conforming to state guidelines.”

For students, employees, and the public, the practical point is that RCC should report campus crime correctly, keep accurate records, follow scholarship and grade-change rules, and make sure money owed to the college is properly paid.

“Ensure that RCC publishes an Annual Campus Security Report that, in addition to crime statistics, discloses policy statements pertaining to its compliance with the Clery Act and that this report or notification of publication on RCC’s website is distributed annually to all students and employees by October 1st for the prior calendar year.”

The Auditor did not do a separate full investigation; instead, the office relied on the outside accountant’s report and issued recommendations to strengthen RCC’s controls and compliance.

“As an alternative to conducting a separate comprehensive review and to avoid duplication, for purposes of this report and our consideration of documented allegations, we intend to rely on the IPA’s report and the expressed procedures and findings therein.”

RCC was expected to fix weaknesses by updating controls, improving compliance, and resolving the underpayment issue identified in the report.

“Continue to evaluate, update, and initiate corrective measures for strengthening RCC’s internal controls and compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations.”

The report is significant because the Auditor found enough concern in the outside review to recommend stronger safeguards across campus safety reporting, academic administration, financial records, and legal compliance.

“Our recommendations, all of which are intended to improve internal control or result in other operating efficiencies, are summarized below.”

An “agreed-upon procedures engagement” means the outside accountant performed specific agreed tasks and reported findings, but did not issue a broad audit opinion saying everything was right or wrong.

“An agreed-upon procedures engagement does not provide an opinion or negative assurance; instead, the report is in the form of procedures and findings.”