Audit: Security Institute lacked oversight, focus

Thursday, Sept. 28, 2006 | 7:27 a.m.

A lack of oversight of UNLV's troubled Institute for Security Studies led to a rudderless counterterrorism program without direction or focus, an internal university audit released Wednesday concluded.

"Management oversight of the program activities and responsibilities was materially lacking," a 23-page summary prepared by the university's finance and business department said.

The report blames many of the management problems at the institute - which has received $8.9 million, mostly in federal funding, since its inception in fall of 2003 - on its founding former director, Lee Van Arsdale, who left in March 2005.

The audit, however, did not absolve Van Arsdale's successor, Tom Williams, of responsibility for the institute's failings, finding several flaws in his management style.

"No overall plan was developed and used to guide the broader direction of the program," the report found.

Despite the report's criticisms, at least one university system regent who has expressed dissatisfaction with the institute's performance said Wednesday he was unimpressed by the findings - and troubled by the fact that the study was conducted internally by UNLV staffers.

"It lacks independence because it was done by staff members on the payroll at UNLV," Regent Mark Alden said. "There's no detail in the findings. It's a pretty generalized report. I don't have a clear picture of exactly how the money was spent at the institute."

Renewing his call for an independent audit, Alden added: "We've got to have confidence in the results."

The institute's inability to meet several of its promised goals, especially on the academic side, were highlighted in a Sun report in June.

Williams, who has been criticized for allowing the institute to stray from its primary academic mission, has been reassigned at the university.

The Sun reported Tuesday that UNLV President David Ashley, even before the release of the audit, took steps to bring more accountability to the secretive institute, which has been faulted for failing to make good on a promise to turn UNLV into a leading academic authority on homeland security.

Ashley, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday, hired a retired Army general from outside Nevada as the institute's new executive director. Scott B. Smith, who has extensive experience in engineering and security-related matters, takes over on Monday.

UNLV officials also announced Wednesday that Mark Rudin - interim vice president for research and Graduate College dean, the man who has been overseeing Williams - is leaving.

Rudin is taking a job as vice president for research at Boise State University.

The audit, although critical of the institute's business operations, said that the majority of the problems that it detected already have been corrected and that the institute is currently performing in a "satisfactory manner."

The report, however, did not address in any detail the institute's lack of academic focus - a fact that Alden pointed to in complaining that the audit was not thorough enough.

One of the key concerns raised in the audit was that the institute has appeared to operate outside the rules and regulations of the Nevada System of Higher Education.

That happened primarily because the institute, despite promises to the regents three years ago, was never placed under the direct control of UNLV.

Instead, the institute was made part of the UNLV Research Foundation, a private offshoot of the UNLV Foundation, the university's chief fundraising arm.

"UNLV needs to determine whether the (Research Foundation) is required to use (university system) policies and procedures, or whether they have authority to develop and implement their own," the audit said.

Before the audit, UNLV officials said they were working to regain direct authority over the institute.

The audit found that the institute needs better record-keeping and control over its private contractors.

It also criticized Williams' management style.

Williams, who ran both the institute and the Research Foundation, was faulted for failing to keep straight the chain of command during important business dealings.

"Although a clear line of authority existed for the (institute), individuals other than the executive director of the (Research Foundation) acted as if they had authority to enter into agreements and commit funds on behalf of the (Research Foundation)," the audit said.

"The executive director of the (Research Foundation) did not act decisively to stop these actions. This lack of management action caused the (institute) to be committed to agreements without the express prior knowledge of the executive director."

The audit found several instances in which employees may have fabricated Williams' signature on contracts and invoices.

"During the review of invoices and contracts," the report said, "it appeared that the signature of the executive director of the (Research Foundation) differed dramatically from time to time."

Williams, the audit said, acknowledged that he had allowed at least one of his grant managers to sign contracts on his behalf "on certain occasions."