A spending controversy involving Connecticut’s public college system prompted investigations, new purchasing-card rules and legislation aimed at tightening financial controls.
Now Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) is considering another response: a 19-person Internal Audit Division with nearly $1.9 million in annual salaries alone.
The case for stronger oversight is clear.
State Comptroller Sean Scanlon’s 2024 special examination reviewed more than 1,000 purchasing-card transactions and found split payments used to get around card limits, restricted purchases without proper approval or documentation, missing itemized receipts, state sales tax that was not properly removed or refunded, and other record keeping failures.
The report also identified questionable spending involving meals, car services, gasoline, and automobile detailing.
CSCU clearly needs stronger oversight. The question now is how much staff it takes to provide it.
CSCU’s proposed long-term structure includes a director, assistant director, information technology auditor, seven senior auditors, four internal auditors, three trainees, and two paid student interns. At full staffing, salaries would total about $1.86 million a year — before fringe benefits, future raises and mandatory training.
And that leaves taxpayers with a number CSCU still needs to explain: Why 19?
The legislature did not leave CSCU free to ignore the problem. Public Act 25-71 required the Board of Regents (BOR) to appoint a compliance officer with broad auditing duties, including regular reviews of records and expenditures across CSCU to assess compliance, financial reporting and recordkeeping, operational effectiveness and internal controls.
The state requires the auditing work. It did not prescribe a 19-person division.
And even CSCU does not sound completely sold on the final number.
At the BOR Audit Committee’s Aug. 19 meeting, Director of Internal Audit Brian Green described the 19-person staffing plan as an “internal advocacy document.” He also made clear that the full buildout is not set in stone.
“The out years beyond 2028, you know, truly do remain to be seen,” Green said. He explained that future hiring would depend in part on what the new audit division finds as its work gets underway.
In other words, CSCU has put 19 positions on its long-term staffing plan before it knows whether experience will show that all 19 are necessary.
CSCU says a centralized audit team and new technology will make the operation more efficient. If so, it should be able to show how those efficiencies still lead to a 19-person staff.
That raises another issue for taxpayers.
CSCU is a big system, and that may require a sizable audit staff. But 19 is still a lot of people. The system should explain what is driving that number.
The Audit Committee’s May minutes reference repeat findings at Charter Oak State College dating back to 2015 and 2017, as well as remediation plans or steps involving Southern, Eastern and Central Connecticut state universities.
Those details raise some obvious questions.
Are recurring audit findings more widespread than the public understands? Are there particular institutions, programs or financial practices driving the staffing request? What risks has CSCU identified that cannot be managed with a smaller team, stronger controls and the analytics tools the system says will make each auditor more productive?
Those questions do not assume there is another scandal waiting to be uncovered. But a request for 19 positions in the audit division naturally raises the question of what, exactly, CSCU believes requires that many people watching the books.
The Aug. 19 discussion also returned to the P-card controversy. Regent Richard Porth said that with a functioning internal audit group, CSCU “might have been able to get in front of that.”
He is right. A functioning internal audit staff matters. Auditors can test controls, identify patterns, review compliance and catch systemic problems that no taxpayer looking at a single receipt would be expected to uncover. The 2024 Comptroller’s report is proof that weak internal controls carry real costs.
But internal auditing should not be the only line of defense.
Yankee Institute’s ERIN’s Act proposal would make state purchasing-card transactions and supporting receipts available through a centralized, searchable public portal. It would not replace internal auditors. Public transparency adds another safeguard by allowing taxpayers, reporters, lawmakers and outside watchdogs to examine the spending themselves.
Good accountability needs both: competent people inside government watching the books and enough transparency for people outside government to look too.
Supporting internal audit, however, does not mean taxpayers should automatically accept any staffing level attached to it.
And 19 is not a done deal.
The Audit Committee’s proposal is expected to go next to the BOR Finance Committee for review and possible inclusion in CSCU’s budget.
That gives Finance an opportunity — and an obligation — to demand the justification that is still missing.
Before advancing the plan, committee members should require CSCU to show the workload behind 19 positions, which financial and operational risks require that level of staffing, how many audits the division expects to complete and what measurable results taxpayers should expect. They should also demand the full cost, not simply the $1.86 million salary estimate that excludes fringe benefits, future raises and mandatory training.
Finance should also require CSCU to explain what is driving the staffing request — whether it is the size and complexity of the system, recurring audit findings, identified control weaknesses, newly identified risks or some combination of those factors.
Taxpayers should not have to guess.
CSCU has shown why stronger auditing is needed. It has not shown why it needs 19 people to do it.
