DIRECTOR of the Institute of Applied Science and Technology (IAST), University of Guyana (UG), Dr Suresh Narine has taken umbrage at a recent article carried by this newspaper on the Audit Office 2010 report on the agency.The article in question headlined: “Audit finds… ‘Untidy’ financial record-keeping at IAST – improperly maintained cash book among other lapses” was published on October 26. In a letter to this publication, Dr Narine said measures have since been put in place to correct the deficiencies highlighted in the report by the Audit Office.
“Dated 2010 report

He went on to say that the “article reports on a five-year-old (2010) audit report of the institute. However, the article does not mention that the reporter solely utilised information from a dated 2010 report, and so the impression created is that the article reports on the current state of affairs at the institution.”
The “dated 2010 report” to which Dr Narine referred was tabled in the House by Minister of Social Cohesion Amna Ally on behalf of Minister of State Joseph Harmon, who was absent from the October 22 sitting of the National Assembly.
In the lead of the article or first sentence, it clearly stated that “The Audit Office has found a number of shortcomings in the financial statement for the Institute of Applied Science and Technology (IAST) for year ending December 31, 2010.”
In his letter, the IAST Director also noted that the reporter did not seek any input from the institute regarding whether any of the issues raised in the article had been addressed in the five intervening years.
“As you are aware, every audit finding is followed by a response to the Audit Office, explaining reasons for particular findings, which can be due to very legitimate reasons, and articulating appropriate management actions to address others,” he said.
Single response
However, audit reports allow for and contain management response to the findings of the auditor(s), and in the 2010 report on the IAST, there was only a single response to the issues raised therein. The article carried by this newspaper focused on the findings on the year 2010 at the IAST as contained in the Audit Office report and as was indicated in the first paragraph of the story. The information provided was sufficient to be reported on for that year, and all the information provided is limited to the year 2010 and not beyond that period.
Dr Narine in his letter pointed out that immediately upon receiving the audit findings for the year 2010, measures were put in place to bring the institute into conformity with all accounting principles required by the Audit Office. In his letter, Dr Narine provided details of the work done by the institute in relation to the findings of the Audit Office.
Dr Narine became director of the IAST in mid-2006 and when he did, the last audited accounts for the IAST was in 2003. He said the new management team began reconciling accounts for the intervening years but many of the records were missing and claimed to have been destroyed in the 2005 floods.
“The senior management team made continued representations to the Audit Officer for auditing of reconciled accounts since 2007. When our telephone calls did not result in audits being conducted, we resorted to writing. We have in our files the last written request in 2009, to the Office of the President and the Audit Office, requesting audits to be conducted of the IAST accounts. Audits of the years 2004 to 2010 were finally conducted in 2011, and preliminary findings presented to the institute. Before this, the institute had no external audit commentary or verification if its accounts were being kept in accordance with the requirements of the Audit Office,” the IAST Director stated in his letter to this publication.