CIT criticised for heavily redacting €65k report into misspending allegations

Cork Institute of Technology has spent almost €65,000 investigating a number of whistleblower allegations of misspending.

Last year the Oireachtas’s public spending watchdog received anonymous correspondences outlining a number of allegations against CIT.

The whistleblower’s catalogue of allegations include claims the college spent an ‘excessive’ sum of €21m in consultancy fees in the five years prior to 2012; that there was excessive spending on hospitality and entertainment at the institute; and that the college’s yachts were taken out by staff for personal use.

It was also alleged the college commissioned portraits of its president and chairman in 2009, at a time when CIT was suffering due to cutbacks.

A report on the findings of the investigation was finalised last December and was submitted to the Higher Education Authority and the Department of Education and Skills.

The PAC received the report this week.

However, committee chairman John McGuinness criticises the heavily redacted report, saying it has been so heavily censored that elements of it do not make sense.

“It is unacceptable that a college could spend so much money on a report and then have it so heavily redacted and not deal with the issues raised,” Mr McGuinness said.

“As far as I’m concerned the issues raised are real and have substance, and that is why I will insist that the president of CIT, the accounting officer of the HEA and the accounting officer of the department will come before us,” he said.

The cost of the report came to light following a parliamentary question Mr McGuinness submitted to Education Minister Jan O’Sullivan earlier this week.

In it she revealed that Cork Institute of Technology paid Arthur Cox Solicitors and O’Flynn Exhams & Partners fees of €34,181.73 and €9,461.53 respectively for legal advice arising from the allegations.

Arthur Cox Solicitors subsequently issued tenders to four companies for the production of a report into the allegations. The successful bidders, KPMG, were then paid €21,175 to produce the report.

“On the basis of concerns expressed by CIT that the publication of the reports could potentially damage the reputation of CIT and the individuals and organisations named in the reports, the Institute submitted redacted copies of the reports to my department and the HEA,” Ms O’Sullivan said.

A spokeswoman for CIT declined this newspaper’s request for a copy of the report and said it would not be commenting on the matter ahead of the PAC hearing.