AABA reproduces (see below) a letter from the National Audit Office (NAO). It is commentary on the going-ons at Hull University and also mentions the name of ACCA President, Dr. Moyra Kedslie.
Under the Human Rights Act 1998, ACCA is a 'public body'. It regulates the insolvency and auditing industries. Its President is a 'public figure'.
For some considerable period, the UK press has made comments upon the conduct of Dr. Kedslie. ACCA's own mouthpiece, 'Accounting & Business' has remained silent. It is censorhsip as usual. We invite readers to make up their mind about the futness of Dr. Kedslie to be ACCA President.
HULL UNIVERSITY AND ACCA PRESIDENT
(7 Sept 2000)
Press Comment on the New ACCA President
(5 May 2000)
FURTHER REVELATIONS ABOUT ACCA DEPUTY-PRESIDENT
(29 Jan 2000)
Call for ACCA Deputy President to Resign
(20 May 1999)
IS MOYRA KEDSLIE FIT TO BE ACCA DEPUTY-PRESIDENT?
(18 May 1999)
==============================
Comptroller and Auditor General
Sir John Bourn KCB
National Audit Office
Buckingham Palace Road
Victoria
London SWIW9SP
Telephone 020-7798 7777
Facsimile 020-72336163
E-mail John.BOURN~nao.gsi.gov.uk
Our Reference 017/1 154/00/F
STEWARDSHIP AND ACADEMIC STANDARDS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
HULL
I am writing, further to my letter of 29 March, to tell you of our findings about the running of the former School of Management at the University of Hull, and to provide an update on the remedial action now being taken by the University. It is clear that the departures of some staff and changes of role for others helped to resolve a number of problems. We have therefore concentrated our attention on the alleged continuing weaknesses caused by organisational lack of accountability and control, rather than the specific actions of individuals. We have sought clarification of a number of points from the University's Vice-Chancellor, Dr David Drewry, and have agreed our findings with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).
Alleged weaknesses in internal controls and failure to take corrective
action
The main allegations are that:
With respect to the appointment of Coopers and Lybrand as external auditors. Price Waterhouse did bid for the work when the contract was market tested, and lost out in competition. Furthermore, they did not elect to use the facility available to them to inform HEFCE or Coopers and Lybrand of any matters of concern upon their departure.
]In conclusion, between 1992 and 1997 there was an inadequate management
response to the
weaknesses identified and that this was essentially an issue of corporate
governance. During this period, some remedial action was taken, such as
the renegotiation in 1996 of all contracts with overseas agents, which
was presided over by a Pro-Vice-Chancellor and assisted by the University's
solicitor. However, a significant step towards addressing the issue was
taken only with the establishment in 1997 of the Faculty of Social Sciences,
and the assumption by the Dean of the Faculty of responsibility for financial
matters in the Schools of Management and Accounting, Business and Finance.
Further significant change came with the appointment of the new Vice- Chancellor,
who took up post on I October 1999. He commissioned a comprehensive review
of the way forward for the University, which is currently being completed.
In addition, as you may be aware, a new business school within the Faculty
came into operation in August 1999.
Alleged examples of personal gain from the teaching of overseas MBAs
The main allegations are that:
In May 2000, the University concluded a strategic review and a detailed internal audit of international operations. They recommend clearer lines of responsibility, improved systems of costing and pricing, reduced reliance on overseas agents and more rigorous compliance with quality assurance procedures. In both cases the resulting action plan will give named individuals responsibility for implementation to a timetable, and provide for monitoring, by the Planning and Operations Committee and the Vice-Chancellor respectively.
Alleged inconsistencies in academic standards
The main allegations are that:
Exam results for a group of eleven Malaysian students were upgraded
from third class to lower second class degrees. An internal review led
by a Pro Vice-Chancellor concluded that the original exam board and external
examiner were not sufficiently professional, but that the end results were
acceptable since the marks had been borderline and due account had not
been taken of language difficulties. There is no clear evidence that the
safeguarding of contractual income was a motivator behind the decision
to upgrade these results,
A number of other steps are being taken in order to strengthen controls
and ensure that past mistakes are not repeated:
JOHN BOURN