Clean energy stumbles again
The Journal Inquirer (by Don Michak) is reporting that state auditors report that officials at CTI are breaking their own rules.
"The auditors said the agency's procedures require that, where possible, any contract for personal services requiring an expenditure of more than $75,000 be awarded on a basis of 'competitive negotiation' where proposals are received from at least three qualified parties.I happen to be both involved in government and an auditor.
They cited one contract with a stated maximum of $75,000 but for which payments totaled $84,700, and three other six-month contracts with one consultant who was paid $69,675, $70,535, and $75,407, respectively, for each."
This is atrocious. First of all, I perused their website and found their financials... for 2003. They don't even have 2004 up yet (from what I could find)... and they've already completed their 2005 audit.
Second, I looked for the "materiality" of the $200,000 that was paid to one consultant. Considering that their total 2003 balance sheet was only slightly in excess of $100,000,000 and their Profit n Loss statement was approximately $4,000,000 on both the revenue and expense side... that $200k should have stuck out like a sore thumb.
I hope someone in Hartford holds CTI's management to account. This is just unacceptable.
Finally, if you didn't read the article, CTI's provides much of the funding for the Clen Energy Fund. And CTCEF is one of the main sponsors of the fuel cells at the Cheshire Town Pool... although unlikely, this may negatively impact the fuel cells. Stay tuned.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
7 comments:
Headline is misleading. CI had a bad audit. Leave it at that!
what do you mean "bad audit?"
You miss the point. Considering CI isn't just "clean energy" your original Headline of "Clean Energy stumbles again" was misleading. Clean energy had nothing to do with CI's auditing difficulty. They do manage the CT clean energy fund but if you read their mission statement below, clean energy is not thier only high tech investment. The headline gives clean energy a bad name.
I guess I am sentive to misleading headlines being forced to read the Hartford courant every day.
This fact on their website should make any story regarding CI. "But, since 1995, CI has financed its equity investments solely through its own investment returns—not taxpayer dollars."
How many quasi-public agencies can say that!
Connecticut Innovations accomplishes its mission primarily by:
Making equity investments in emerging Connecticut technology companies;
Providing essential, non-financial support to entrepreneurs; and
Conducting initiatives that address specific needs of Connecticut's technology sector.
Since 1995, CI has become the state's leading investor in high technology, investing more than $133 million in Connecticut companies. CI's investments benefit all Connecticut residents by attracting and retaining innovative companies; creating high-paying jobs; and positioning the state to excel in the global, knowledge-driven economy.
It's not that "clean energy" did anything wrong. But it seems to me that clean energy got "shortchanged" if the JI article if accurate.... that is, clean energy has been underfunded... it was shortchanged. I used the term "stumbled"... I was taking it from a different perspective... as though it were an inadvertent stumble... nothing malicious.
About not using tax dollars though... if CI's not using tax dollars... why would the electric companies give them money? Seriously... is this just a matter of semantics? One man's "tax" is another man's "fee?"
CCEF is an absolute joke. Consumers have to sign up to pay extra to get clean energy sent to them, theoretically anyway. The surcharge goes to CI who decides what to do with the $$$. It's more nutso complicated CT government.
CI has been the leading investor in technology for 10 years and what's it got us? The state attracted Cabela's and Walgreens.
http://www.ctinnovations.com/site/portfolio/portfolio_companies.asp
Here's the stuff CI has invested in. Not one mention of what kind of return the taxpayer has received.
Post a Comment