The legislative audit that detailed contracting problems at Morgan State University has raised lots of questions. But university officials have failed so far to give satisfactory answers. That's especially disturbing because the auditors were concerned enough about irregularities to refer the matter to the state attorney general's office for possible criminal charges. At the least, a follow-up audit is needed and greater oversight of Morgan building contracts should be restored - until the university can show that it can be a better steward of state funds.
Auditors found "significant deficiencies" in the university's ability to manage and oversee capital improvement projects from 2003 to 2007. During that time, Morgan, which is a state school but outside the University System of Maryland, was given greater autonomy over building projects.
But in the most egregious example cited in the audit, the school allegedly padded a construction contract by $3.1 million and then used $2.4 million of the money to pay the same construction company for different work that had not been approved by the Board of Public Works, as is required. In addition, the auditors found the university's controls over payroll to be inadequate.
The university's director of design and construction resigned last month, but he was clearly not solely responsible for the shortcomings. During a state Senate committee hearing last week, Morgan President Earl S. Richardson and a top financial officer admitted that mistakes were made, but they repeatedly cited the potential criminal investigation to avoid fully answering questions about why the contract with the Whiting Turner Construction Co. had been padded. Although administrators insist the university is moving aggressively to put more internal controls in place, the school can't simply be taken at its word.
Legislators need to keep probing until they uncover everything that went wrong and why, and they should review continuing Morgan's increased autonomy on capital projects. For their part, Morgan officials need to be more specific about what they're doing to ensure contracting and billing problems don't crop up again. The burden of proof is on them.