You asked for a list of the recommendations of the Governor’s Commission on UConn Review and Accountability that the General Assembly needs to enact.

SUMMARY

Eight of the commission’s 23 recommendations appear to require General Assembly action to be implemented. An additional seven recommendations could be implemented by UConn’s board of trustees or administration, but legislators might consider enacting them if they wish to remove university officials’ discretion to do so. The remaining recommendations seem to be primarily administrative functions.

The governor created the commission to (1) determine whether UConn’s internal controls over its spending for UConn 2000 projects are sufficient to reasonable assure compliance with applicable law, regulation, and policy; (2) recommend how university policies concerning UConn 2000 can be strengthened; and (3) determine whether President Austin’s April 2005 corrective action plan is sufficient and, where it is not, make appropriate recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS PROBABLY REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE ACTION

Oversight

• Board of trustee members should be limited to one, six-year term and must be appointed within 90 days after a term expires (CGS § 10a-103). (This recommendation apparently applies only to gubernatorial appointments, who serve for six years; elected alumni serve for four years and elected student members serve for two years. )

• The board of trustees should select and appoint independent auditors for all capital construction projects (CGS §§ 10a-104, 109d).

• All audits authorized by the board should be included in the statutorily required reports the university must submit to the governor and legislative committees (CGS §§ 10a-109x, 109y).

Organizational Restructuring

• An independent university building committee should be established and made responsible for managing all UConn 2000 and 21^st Century UConn projects. The governor and the board of trustees chairman should each appoint three committee members; these six should elect the seventh. The members choose the committee’s chairman (new).

The commission identified specific powers and duties this building committee should have, including developing UConn 2000 and 21^st Century UConn construction programs, selecting design and construction management professionals and overseeing their performance, reviewing plans, approving change orders, establishing standard practices and procedures, and hiring an executive director (CGS § 10a-109n).

Code Compliance

• Staff in UConn’s Office of Fire Marshall and Building Inspector (which was created under the university’s corrective action plan) should report directly to the Department of Public Safety (new). (Under UConn’s corrective action plan, one inspector in this new office is a DPS employee. This was implemented through a memorandum of understanding. )

• All buildings constructed or renovated under UConn 2000, whether “threshold” and “non-threshold,” should be held to the same standard. This recommendation appears to call for excluding UConn 2000 projects from CGS § 29-276b, but it does not explicitly state this.

Construction Process

• The university should use the Department of Administrative Services’ process for prequalifying contractors (CGS § 10-109n).

• All construction projects should be competitively bid, with certain (unspecified) exceptions, and awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. Projects should be rebid if fewer than three bids are received (CGS § 10-109n).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE ACTION

Oversight

• The board should establish a time by which recommendations in each audit and management letter are to be implemented. Its Joint Audit and Compliance Committee should monitor implementation.

• The board should have a building and grounds committee independent of the university administration’s Building and Grounds Committee and the board’s Financial Affairs Committee.

Code Compliance

• All buildings constructed during the UConn 2000 program that have not been fully inspected by an independent building inspector should be fully inspected by a date certain (February 1, 2006 is the commission’s recommendation). (Neither the commission’s recommendations or UConn’s corrective action plan appear to call for such inspections. It is not clear whether this independent inspector is from outside the university or is a member of the Office of Fire Marshall and Building Inspector. )

• All building plans and revisions should be reviewed for fire and safety code compliance.

Budget and Finance

• The university should conduct a comprehensive assessment of its existing physical plant and institute an “asset protection plan” like that employed by the Department of Higher Education.

• The new university building committee (see oversight, above) should approve a prioritized list of deferred maintenance funding for board approval (new).

Construction Process

• The university should conduct periodic audits of the construction administrators’ and project managers’ costs.

SS: ro