Alabama Governor Kay Ivey has eliminated all 18 members of the Worldwide Motorsports Corridor of Fame (IMHOF) Fee after an audit uncovered lacking automobiles and cash. A brand new fee has already been appointed because the museum stays beneath scrutiny.
The IMHOF was established in 1983 and contains all kinds of historic NASCAR race automobiles, in addition to another notable autos.
Nevertheless, an October audit discovered no fewer than 35 violations. For instance, over $200,000 in ‘misspent’ funds related to a former worker, which is at the moment being investigated by the legal professional basic’s workplace. No felony fees have been filed presently.
Moreover, there have been many different points that don’t have anything to do with the ex-employee, together with two donated autos which might be reportedly lacking: A 1969 Dodge Charger Daytona and a 2001 Pontiac Firebird Firehawk tenth Anniversary Convertible. The museum recorded them as being bought, however there isn’t a related documentation to function a proof of sale.
Amongst these eliminated had been Gerald Dial, who labored because the board chairman and had been related to the museum for over 40 years.
Mike Raita, who beforehand labored because the govt director on the IMHOF up till early 2024, bought a 1968 Camaro Convertible Tempo Automotive from the fee for $15,000, and that this adopted over $22,000 in repairs. Raita’s spouse bought a 1998 F-150 from the fee for $1,000, the audit mentioned.
You’ll find the complete report and findings from the audit, as supplied by the Alabama Legislature, HERE. Moreover, beneath you will discover a listing of all 35 violations discovered through the audit:
– The Fee didn’t implement insurance policies and procedures that require segregation of duties together with evaluations and approvals of actions pertaining to the receiving and disbursing of cash
– The Fee didn’t design and implement controls requiring a ample evaluate of checking account and bank card transactions, because of this expenditures had been made that had been both unallowable or not documented in a fashion that allowability may very well be decided.
– The Fee didn’t design and implement controls requiring a ample evaluate of payroll transactions and because of this an worker overpaid herself.
– Money obtained for gross sales was lacking and never deposited to the financial institution accounts of the Fee.
– The Fee didn’t get rid of nonconsumable private property correctly.
– Fee cash was improperly deposited into the private account of a Fee member.
– The Fee didn’t design and implement controls to make sure all public funds and property had been dealt with by the Fee and never its associated basis, and that each one property or proceeds from the sale of such rightfully owned by the Fee had been accounted for after sale.
– The Fee failed to keep up a list of historic autos and memorabilia in its possession.
– The Fee didn’t preserve an up to date checklist of nonconsumable private property owned by the Fee and different data associated to the property as required.
– The Fee didn’t design and implement controls requiring contracts involving Fee operations to be accredited by a majority of a quorum of Fee members and documented in official assembly minutes previous to execution. As well as, there have been no controls in place to make sure the associated monetary transactions had been correctly supported.
– The Fee didn’t design and implement controls requiring contracts involving Fee operations to be accredited by a majority of a quorum of Fee members and documented in official assembly minutes previous to execution. As well as, there have been no controls in place to make sure skilled service contracts require that gadgets and/or providers are documented as having been obtained prior to creating cost.
– The Fee didn’t acquire and preserve acceptable sufficient supporting documentation for sure transactions.
– The Fee didn’t have correct documentation to confirm workers’ charges of pay.
– The Fee paid gross sales tax to a number of distributors though exempt from taxation in accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975, Part 41-9-474.
– The Fee failed to gather and remit gross sales tax from reward store gross sales in accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975, Part 40-23-2(1).
– The Fee didn’t hold correct assembly minutes to doc all official actions of the Fee.
– The Fee didn’t have correct controls over money collected at occasions.
– The Fee didn’t have correct controls over money receipts and deposits
– The Fee didn’t have correct controls over sure leases and lease funds.
– The Fee didn’t have correct controls over stock bought for resale.
– The Fee didn’t have correct controls in place to make sure appropriations had been correctly recorded, tracked, and expended lawfully.
– The Fee’s basic ledger was not an acceptable reflection of the Fee’s monetary exercise.
– The Fee has not complied with sure provisions of Government Orders issued by the Governor.
– The Fee didn’t implement insurance policies and procedures that require the financial institution accounts to be correctly reconciled.
– The Fee didn’t have correct inside controls over petty money funds.
– The Fee didn’t adjust to Part 93 of the Structure of Alabama 2022 by paying bills of its associated basis.
– The Fee didn’t guarantee the correct financial institution accounts had been held within the Fee’s title within the Safety for Alabama Funds Enhancement (SAFE) program.
– The Fee didn’t adjust to the Code of Alabama 1975, Part 25-1-3, as a result of it didn’t evaluate the employment standing of people employed by the Fee.
– The Fee didn’t have clearly outlined insurance policies and procedures regarding payroll and personnel issues
– The Fee didn’t adjust to the Alabama Open Conferences Act.
– The Fee didn’t correctly notify the Secretary of State of Fee member vacancies in accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975, Part 36-14-17(c).
– The Fee didn’t undergo the Chief Procurement Officer for purchases or request delegation of authority as required by the Code of Alabama 1975, Sections 41-4-110 by 41-4-179.
– The Fee didn’t adjust to the Code of Alabama 1975, Title 39, by awarding a number of public works initiatives with out acquiring sealed bids and adhering to different Title 39 necessities pertaining to promoting and bonding.
– The Fee didn’t report all expenditures to the Comptroller for inclusion within the state expenditures database in accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975, Part 41-4-65.
– The Fee didn’t require and procure vendor disclosure statements from distributors in accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975, Sections 41-16-82 and 41-16-85
We would like your opinion!
What would you wish to see on Motorsport.com?
Take our 5 minute survey.
– The Motorsport.com Workforce
