Chương 2: Hawai `i Tổng cục Du lịch Enabled Hawai` i Khách thăm Văn phòng Công ước Khai thác tài trợ hợp đồng Nhà nước phá vỡ sự trở lại của tiền với cơ quan có thẩm quyền xử lý. Chúng tôi thấy rằng thực hành của chi tiêu chính xác lên đến giới hạn của nó tồn tại trong suốt thời gian của hợp đồng giải trí của cơ quan có thẩm quyền. | Chapter 2 The Hawai i Tourism Authority Enabled the Hawai i Visitors Convention Bureau to Exploit State Contract Funding circumvent the return of funds to the authority. We found that this practice of spending exactly up to its limit existed for the duration of the bureau s leisure contract with the authority. However it should be noted that the scope of our financial audit primarily focused on the calendar year ending December 31 2002. Although HVCB conducted its own financial audit for the same period the State and the Legislature should take additional steps to satisfy themselves that the practice that led to our consultant s qualified opinion did not happen in previous years or under the meetings conventions and incentives contract. We strongly believe that HVCB s practice of committing funds to pay for future goods and services warrants reexamination. HVCB s poor contract management results in substandard oversight of its state-funded subcontractors HVCB generally procures goods or services from third-party vendors subcontractors in three ways 1 a formal contract issued by HVCB 2 an agreement for services which is generally issued by the vendor and which may include a proposal or 3 purchases for food and beverages that do not require proposals. Although HVCB expends a significant amount of its funds on these contracts agreements and purchases we found HVCB s administration and management of them deficient. Procurement policies and procedures were inadequate and HVCB did not adhere to those that were in place. HVCB failed to adequately and consistently document its contract monitoring and evaluation efforts. Instead HVCB tended to rely on personal relationships and oral communications as evaluation tools. We also found that HVCB did not execute contracts in a timely manner and that procured services were sometimes beyond the scope of the bureau s leisure contract. Moreover the bureau expended state contract funds for legal services to develop and advocate .
