As Deputies are probably aware, Dublin Institute of Technology has featured in the news recently regarding other issues. A comprehensive report cited poor morale and communications within the institute, although that is not a matter for us. There were newspaper headlines reading "DIT draws scathing criticism in confidential report" and "Blunt assessment of the problems facing Dublin Institute of Technology".
Dublin Institute of Technology.
Mr. J. Purcell(An tÁrd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.
Mr. Purcell
The report was made by the Labour Relations Commission.
Dr. Brendan Goldsmith (President, Dublin Institute of Technology), and Mr. PaddyMcDonagh, (Assistant Secretary General, Department of Education and Science) called and examined.
We welcome representatives of Dublin Institute of Technology to consider reports and financial statements for the years ending 31 August 1997 and 31 August 1998. Representatives of the institute last appeared before the committee on 1 October 1998, when annual financial statements for 1994, 1995 and 1996 were examined and noted.
I make you aware that you do not enjoy absolute privilege. I notify you that as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges, and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997, grants certain rights to persons who are identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. Notwithstanding this provision in legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Mr. Goldsmith to introduce his officials.
Mr. Goldsmith
I am accompanied by Dr. Frank McMahon, the director of academic affairs in Dublin Institute of Technology, Mr. Ray Wills, the institute's director of finance and Mr. Stephen Manuel, acting finance officer.
I ask Mr. Paddy McDonagh to introduce his colleagues.
I am the assistant secretary general of the higher education division of the Department of Education and Science. I am accompanied by Ms Anne Killian, principal officer of the Department's building unit in Tullamore; Ms Teresa Griffin, assistant principal officer of the unit and Mr. Michael Troy, acting principal officer in the colleges section of the Department.
Mr. Purcell
The main issues before the committee this morning are the supplement to my audit report and Dublin Institute of Technology's accounts for the year ended 31 August 1998. A number of issues arise, which I will deal with as quickly as possible. First, I draw attention to a settlement and legal costs arising from an action for damages taken by former students against the College of Marketing and Design, a constituent college of Dublin Institute of Technology. The students allege they were invited to join the fourth year of a diploma course on the basis that it would be designated as a degree of university standard, which did not materialise. The institute's legal advice was that it should settle for a reasonable amount, advice supported by the Department with the rider that the institute should explore how the costs may be recovered in part or whole from their insurers or the insurers of the City of Dublin VEC, who had administrative responsibility for the college in 1992 when the claim was made.
As far as I am aware, efforts to recover the costs from insurers have been unsuccessful to date. The final cost of the settlement was just over £1 million, made up of £450,000 damages and the rest comprising the legal costs of the institute and the plaintiffs. The cost was charged to the account of the year under review. The accounting officer has assured me there should not be a possibility of a recurrence as the institute's firm policy is that a course may not be offered to students in advance of validation by the academic council and the necessary approval by the Department.
A second issue is the serious breakdown in management and control in the institute's Conservatory of Music and Drama. This was uncovered by an internal audit which confirmed the earlier concerns we had expressed about control of fixed assets within the institute. The internal audit's findings, set out in section 2 of the supplement, do not make for pleasant reading. There was no control over and no insurance cover of valuable musical instruments. Goods were ordered at inflated prices of a type and quantity not commensurate with the needs of the conservatory. There was a failure to properly account for examination fees. These were the main weaknesses found although a much tighter control regime was implemented in response to the findings.
Three other issues were mentioned. The institute used the same contractor to clean its premises from 1992 to 1999, without putting the work to tender in 1995 when the three-year contract period ended. The same contractor was used to clean new premises that had come into use in the interim without any competitive tendering process. The annual value of this work was more than £400,000. The matter has since been regularised. The accounting system used by Dublin Institute of Technology did not allow for the accurate determination of liabilities at the year's end resulting from the supply of goods and services and the related problem of control over the delivery of goods. Both issues have been addressed in the interim. A specialist piece of equipment donated to the institute and never used turned out to be costly for the taxpayer. During the year of account it cost £152,000 to dispose of it in a safe manner. The committee will be relieved to hear the Accounting Officer has assured me there is no other equipment in the possession of the institute which requires disposal in a controlled fashion.
Dr. Goldsmith, as we did not receive an opening statement from you, I ask you to elaborate on some of those points very briefly, please.
The governing body of the Dublin Institute of Technology takes the matter of governance very seriously and has established an audit committee, within the body, and an internal audit department with three staff members.
The procedure is that written statements should be submitted before 2 p.m. on the preceding day in order to speed up the process.
I do not have a written statement, just a couple of bullet points. The audit committee reviews all internal audits and all actions taken by management in relation to them. This process has been in place since September 1997 and was an effective mechanism in identifying internally a number of issues which needed to be addressed and which were dealt with subsequently by management.
The accounts for the year ending 31 August 1998 were signed on 27 September 2000, nearly two years and one month afterwards. When will we get the accounts for 1999?
The accounts for 1999 have just been sent to the institute. The governing body will sign them at its next meeting.
Eighteen months after the year end. I want to know the reason there is such a delay in the preparation of accounts.
The problem is that we have to process them through the Comptroller and Auditor General, which takes a considerable amount of time.
During the previous year many of the various organisations and institutes which come within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General have brought their accounts up to date far more speedily and I wonder if it is reasonable to get the accounts at this stage. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General believe that the time taken is reasonable, or could it be done more quickly?
That is one of the key things coming through. I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General if there is a reason, from the education sector, we do not have the accounts for 2000. We should be examining the accounts for last year, not accounts going back four years. Why do we not have the accounts for 2000?
Mr. Purcell
We will deal with the accounts for 1999 first. They were cleared in my office last November, subject to certain changes being put through. I do not know the reason the delay has occurred. The audit committee wanted to have a look at the changes before they were put through, but, clearly, that should not take six months. I concur generally with the sentiments expressed by Deputies that audits should be carried out as soon as possible and that for accountability to be effective, it should be timely. We can only deal with accounts when they are submitted to us and the books backing them up are ready to be checked. In this regard, there have been problems going back some years, not confined to the Dublin Institute of Technology which has not fully recovered from its splitting from the CDVEC. There was a resourcing problem within the Dublin Institute of Technology consequent on the split. My on the ground have said things have improved, but there could perhaps be a more speedy response to outstanding queries which hold up the accounts.
Dr. Goldsmith, surely Deputies Ardagh and Bell and the Comptroller and Auditor General have a very valid point in that it is a bit rich that we are discussing your accounts for the year ending 31 August 1998? It is very much historical information and you are way behind at this stage. When are you going to modernise this function and bring it up to date?
The Comptroller and Auditor General is correct in saying the Dublin Institute of Technology has suffered from its establishment and was put in a position where for an initial period it had no function at all and its whole accounting system was being run from outside. It has made steady progress in this regard. A significant factor, however, which will improve the outcome of our accounting procedures will be the new management information system being phased in. The first step in the process will take place this September. We responded as fast as we could within our resources. The accounts for 2000 are with the Comptroller and Auditor General and await audit.
This is an institute which prepares young people to engage in commercial and industrial activity and it cannot even put its own affairs in order and get its accounts up to date. If a company were to act in this way, it would be in receivership. Presenting accounts to the committee four years after the event is not good enough and the Dublin Institute of Technology should be told, through the Chair, in no uncertain terms that we will not accept this.
Dr. Goldsmith, it is quite clear that the committee is extremely unhappy. We are aware that it is not a matter for us to deal with, but the LRC report details other problems you have had in recent times. As far as the committee is concerned, you have to get your act together. You have introduced your officials who include your director of finance and other directors. We want to know when the accounts are going to be brought up to date. When are we going to be discussing the reports for 1999 and 2000 at this committee?
The report for 1999 has been signed by the Comptroller and Auditor General and sent to the Dublin Institute of Technology governing body. The accounts for 2000 have not been sent back to us from the Comptroller and Auditor General. We cannot make any progress until that happens.
The Comptroller and Auditor General said they were cleared last November.
Mr. Purcell
While the accounts for 1999 were cleared by my senior staff last November, I cannot give my certificate or report on them until they are signed by the governing body of the Dublin Institute of Technology. As I understand it, it has not yet signed them and we have made repeated telephone calls seeking them. I, certainly, anticipated this kind of criticism from the committee when I saw that the Dublin Institute of Technology was scheduled to appear today having heard members echo the same sentiments in regard to the timeliness of accounts. The accounts for 1999 were not signed by the governing body up to yesterday, though I am open to correction by the Accounting Officer.
They will be signed at the next meeting.
Would it normally take six months, from the Comptroller and Auditor General's referral in November, for the governors to sign them?
In fairness, there are a number of issues to be finalised between the parties even after the report comes through and it is that which takes the time. It is not a question of just sitting on them for six months.
When do you expect we will get this set of accounts?
The accounts for 1999 will be available after the governing body meets in June. I cannot comment on the accounts for 2000 because we have not received them from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
You can appreciate our concerns and that there is work for you to do to bring them up to date.
If we can move on to the accounts for 1998 and the Comptroller and Auditor General supplement, a Steinway piano was purchased at a specially reduced price of £50,000 and there was not a tinkle out of it for three years. What is happening with it? There is also a bassoon valued at £25,000 and a contrabass valued at £19,000. There seems to have been a litany of disasters in accounting for the control and security arrangements for the fixed assets. How did the witness feel when he heard about this?
The Steinway was bought after an international competition at a substantially reduced rate. The possibility of buying very expensive equipment at a reduced price arises periodically. The piano is in use in the Dublin Institute of Technology conservatory of music.
Why was it not used for three years?
Part of the reason was that we had significant accommodation problems with regard to music. The new theatre we are using in our building in Rathmines was completed somewhat later than we had anticipated.
It was originally purchased for an international recital. Was it used at that recital?
It was not purchased by the Dublin Institute of Technology. The promoters of the recital imported the piano. However, the extensive cost of reimporting such instruments means that they are often willing to sell them at a very reasonable price.
It is stated that it has a value of £50,000. For how much was it actually purchased?
I am sorry, but I do not know the precise figure off the top of my head. Under our insurance policy the replacement value is £82,500.
Has the witness actually heard it?
Yes, it has been used in the Dublin Institute of Technology theatre in Rathmines.
Is it out of storage and up on stage for everyone to see?
Yes.
How did the witness feel about the accounting for musical instruments generally? Was there a possibility of instruments going astray? Was a record kept of the quantity and types? One can imagine, particularly in the case of smaller ones like violins, bass and wind instruments——
Once we had our internal audit unit look at this we realised that there were weaknesses. Part of the problem with music is that it is very different from the rest of the Dublin Institute of Technology in that significant numbers of very small children also receive tuition. We teach children from about the age of four years. There has always been a somewhat different approach to the whole education process in music than in the rest of the Dublin Institute of Technology. Having said that, once we realised that there was a certain lack of control we moved very rapidly to put in place a register of musical instruments. We had stock takes in October 1997, February 1999 and August 2000 and a further one is due in 2001. We have, therefore, taken significant steps to ensure there will be no future problems in this regard.
I notice that the conservatory had less than 10 personal computers, yet the value of computer consumables purchased was £51,300 - more than the value of the Steinway. What in the name of God happened there?
That figure relates to a general breakdown on the part of a senior staff officer in the institute. It was not the only thing wrong. The Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned that there were other issues which emerged through our internal audits. We investigated and began a process of disciplinary action against the person involved and he resigned.
What kind of process?
A process of disciplinary action against the person involved——
And he resigned.
He resigned.
Is this the same person who had an overtime bill equivalent to 71% of his or her basic salary?
Yes.
A number of related companies in the United Kingdom supplied goods. I presume that among those goods were the computer consumables, cleaning materials and other items.
Yes.
What was the relationship between those companies and was there any tie-in between them and the purchase of the——
We are not in a position to say that with absolute certainty. We certainly had suspicions, but were not able to offer conclusive proof. The over-ordering of computer related equipment did not prove useless as the equipment was distributed to other areas of the Dublin Institute of Technology where it was much needed.
It was actually the administrator in the conservatory of music who was placing these orders.
He was abusing the procedures laid down.
He bought cleaning materials for £12,600——
Yes.
——light bulbs - very expensive light bulbs - to a value of £5,600 and blue pens for £3,400. At 5p per pen, how many does one get for £3,400?
A lot.
There must have been a lot of injuries in the conservatory of music when first aid kits were purchased for £3,300. Plastic sacks were bought for £5,400. I wonder what they were used to ferry away. These are huge sums of money that could not be ignored. Action was taken, but how far did it get?
Through negotiations we were able to get back 50% of the value of the goods by returning some of them and redistributing others. One of the items mentioned by the Deputy, cleaning materials, was not very appropriate in the conservatory of music, but was so in the engineering department to which it was transferred.
Let me refer briefly to the cleaning contract, which was put out to tender. What were the respective costs before and after the competitive tender?
In 1987, when the cleaning contract was first introduced, a comparison was made between using it or using direct labour. It showed that it was about 40% cheaper to use the contract.
Sorry, my question was related to the cleaning contract, not in-house cleaning. It was put out to competitive tender after seven years with the same contractor. Did that show a difference in price?
We received eight tenders and the contract was subsequently awarded to the existing company on the basis of the criterion that its was the most economically advantageous tender. In 1997 it cost £443,000. The figure for 1998 was £428,000.
The services were put out to tender in 1999. The existing contractor was successful and awarded the contract from 1 January 2000 to 31 July 2002. Does Dr. Goldsmith have details of the cost in 1999 and the tender price for 2000?
We could certainly get it.
Could we be supplied with that, please?
Yes.
What is a hot-spot irradiator? Was it acquired by donation?
Yes, it was donated to the College of Technology in Kevin Street, prior to the formation of Dublin Institute of Technology. A hot-spot irradiator is a radiation source that can give fairly intense doses of radiation, but is used largely on food and food preservation and that type of activity. I am not a physicist so I may not be absolutely technically correct, but that is the general gist of it.
Is it right that it was not used, and its disposal cost £152,000?
Yes, that is correct. WhenDublin Institute of Technology was established, this was one of the items we discovered we had inherited. It was covered by a licence from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, but we discovered that the facility was not being used. There have been significant changes in the type of radiation science that was being undertaken within the institute at that time. The old days of having significant radiation sources within academic departments has long since stopped, as no one wants to use a radioactive source now, other than in a very special facility. Dublin Institute of Technology is now reducing its use of radioactive sources and ionising sources down to the absolute minimum, perhaps just a small demonstrator pack for the physics students.
I see from note 2 of the account that there were 21,700 students enrolled in 1997-98, and 3,000 apprentices in that year. Could we have a breakdown of how the Dublin Institute of Technology is assisting the various industries for which apprentices are trained, and is it helping enough? Should there be room for more apprentices or more courses, and how can it be improved to ensure that we have enough of a work force in the trades to meet future needs? I am thinking in particular of bricklayers who are alleged to be earning well in excess of £1,000 a week and I am told that tradesmen from related house-building trades are very much in demand. Are the numbers needed being supplied and is the Dublin Institute of Technology doing as much as possible in that regard, or is there a way that the State can help to finance given courses so that more apprentices can be trained to become good tradesmen?
DIT is probably the largest provider of apprentice training in the State. About 30% of all apprentices within the State are educated in Dublin Institute of Technology, which is a significant undertaking. If the Deputy is familiar with numbers from previous years, he may think of the student numbers as being smaller than they were in the past. This is a reflection of the fact that the nature of apprenticeship training has changed significantly. While the absolute numbers of apprentices may look smaller than they did ten years ago, if they are looked at as whole-time equivalents they have not changed that significantly. Apprentices now come on a block-release scheme, as distinct from one day a week in the past.
There is a demand and pressure to take significantly more students. Dublin Institute of Technology has physical problems in this regard - a lack of space to accommodate the apprentices. In the past year the Department of Education and Science has provided substantial new physical resources for us, regarding electrical and aeronautical apprentices, which is very important for the State as Dublin Institute of Technology is the only centre for aeronautical apprentices. The whole area has changed and now requires European certification, before the apprentices can effectively work, so we have made significant moves there. Regarding the construction trades, Dublin Institute of Technology has planned in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science, to try to expand their numbers but the physical wherewithal to do it is causing a problem. It is probably known that there is an ongoing initiative to acquire premises for Dublin Institute of Technology at Grangegorman, and that is the No. 1 item on the agenda in that regard.
Is that for apprenticeship training?
It is not solely for it, but will include significant facilities, particularly for the construction trades.
Is it true that one of theDublin Institute of Technology faculties has a connection with a Chinese university?
It depends on what is meant by a connection. We have visited China, but I do not think we have a formal connection.
What is the relationship between the officers of the institute and a certain Chinese university?
We have relationships of an academic nature between individual members of staff and people in many universities throughout the world. Dublin Institute of Technology is actively looking at the question of whether it can bring Chinese students to Dublin Institute of Technology on a full fee paying basis.
Are any of the lecturers or staff of Dublin Institute of Technology in receipt of income for services rendered abroad?
In China?
Not specifically in China, but anywhere abroad?
No.
This is the most appalling document I have read since I came into the Dáil 20 years ago. There is an inordinate amount of questions that require to be answered on one of the accounts that have been submitted. It would not be possible to operate a commercial activity in the way that these accounts have been managed. There are between three and four pages of detailed questions in one document about bad inefficient administration. Let us take the question regarding goods that were ordered, which were available at lower prices under contracts, which the institute already had in place. There was an apparent failure to use price lists and quotations, and goods were supplied without written purchase orders. This goes on and on to the extent that in one case there were no invoices for goods supplied, and the Dublin Institute of Technology was billed for £81,600, and that was negotiated down to £41,000. Goods were supplied to the institute at 100% more than the list price, and was negotiated down after the event and after it was queried by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The problem is that we are now discussing the year ended 31 August 1998, and have no indication in this document that all of the questions required to be answered by the Comptroller and Auditor General have been dealt with. What steps have been taken to put right this maladministration in the interests of the tax payers? This committee represents the shareholders in the institute, the shareholders being the tax payers whose money has been squandered. On behalf of the shareholders we want to know what Dr. Goldsmith, as the senior accounting officer, will do about it.
Our internal audit procedure addressed the issues to which the Deputy refers. It detected a misdemeanour on the part of an individual member of staff in a position of trust who flouted the regulations. We have identified the problems and have taken action to rectify them, something to which the Comptroller and Auditor General has referred. Unfortunately, one cannot say for sure that a breach of trust will not recur, but we have procedures in place to reduce the risk. I can assure the Deputy of that.
I am not being disrespectful, and I do not want Dr. Goldsmith to interpret my remarks as a personal attack. I do not know how the Comptroller and Auditor General feels, but I am certainly not satisfied that the problems uncovered by the audit queries were dealt with effectively. In response to my queries, the president stated that purchasing procedures and controls were disregarded in placing orders. In addition, staff members were allowed to open bank accounts in their own names for the purchase of goods and payment for certain facilities. I have not ever encountered that in public life. I do not know if my colleagues have. Members of staff were given the right to open bank accounts in the name of the institute to pay bills without their having been accounted for. When the Comptroller and Auditor General asked for copies of invoices for goods supplied, the institution was unable to account for them or produce them to certify that the goods in question were delivered.
The large bulk of these questions concerned the actions of one individual, who has since left Dublin Institute of Technology. The Dublin Institute of Technology did not say to members of staff that they could open bank accounts in the institute's name. However, we inherited a set of circumstances in which accounts were held for special purposes, often relating, for example, to small amounts of money held in Erasmus accounts or held for research purposes. These kinds of accounts have since been closed, and the institute no longer allows people to hold them. If they were discovered, disciplinary action would be taken.
Even after your issuing a statement to that effect, the practice still continued in one case. This is in the reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General's query.
In that one case, the account was dormant and there was a small amount of money left in it from a previous project. That has been examined by the finance director.
It would take us a week to go through the documents we have and deal with all the queries. Deputy Ardagh raised some and there are many more. It is appalling. When re-examining the affairs of the institute, the Comptroller and Auditor General should know that we would have to be satisfied, in the interest of the taxpayers, that the issue has been dealt with and brought under control.
I thank Deputy Bell for his comments and I fully agree with his sentiments. Dr. Goldsmith is a representative of the State's largest third level college. It has 22,000 students. Although we have discussed the 1998 accounts, I have seen the confidential report produced by the LRC regarding the difficulties of the institution. In our discussion, we have tended to regard one person as a scapegoat, who was dismissed. His name arose on many occasions regarding the way in which he conducted his affairs. We cannot ignore other problems outlined in the report, of which Dr. Goldsmith is aware - bad management, academic snobbery and a lack of communication.
The LRC report that the committee has read serves as a shocking indictment of the Dublin Institute of Technology. Because we are dealing with public accounts and funding, it is not good enough for the institute's government to wait until June to endorse the 1999 reports, to which the Comptroller and Auditor General referred last November. I want the 1999 report in June, at which time we will carry out a review. Dr. Goldsmith has a great deal of tidying up to do.
I read in the paper during the week that the Dublin Institute of Technology has appointed a head of communication and human resources. That is only a starting point. Much more must be done to weed out problems such as academic snobbery. The committee does not want to comment on that because we are talking about 1998 accounts, but it cannot ignore the present circumstances in the Dublin Institute of Technology. I call on Deputy McCormack to speak.
Deputies Ardagh and Bell and the Chairman have dealt adequately with the points they raised. I wish to address a separate issue. A 1992 claim for damages was made by 39 former students, which was settled in March 1999. The cost of the settlement was more than £1 million. The students got £450,000, which is just over £11,500 each. The legal costs amounted to more than £14,000 per student, which is about £571,000. More than half the settlement went towards legal costs. How were such legal costs incurred in a matter that was settled?
The claim from the students dated from 1992. There was a long period of legal action before the case was settled. The institute was paid for the legal costs of the students. I am afraid that is the cost of legal entanglements.
That does not answer my question. If the legal advice in 1999 was to seek the approval of the Department of Education and Science to settle the case, after legal bills of £571,000 were incurred, would it not have been easier to settle the case in 1992 when £11,000 would have been worth much more to each student than it was in March 1999? Was there any assessment of that legal advice, which allowed bills of £571,000 to be incurred before the settlement?
Part of the problem was that institute was not involved in the case in 1992. It was an issue concerning CDVEC. We had no involvement at that level.
Were the legal advisers the same before and after your involvement?
I do not think so, because the institute has had its own legal advisers since 1993, and they would not have been consulted on the matter until much later. My understanding is that this action, which began in 1992, went through a long period in which there was no significant progress. Then it emerged as a liability that the institute inherited under the Dublin Institute of Technology Act.
Is there a breakdown of the costs, which amounted to more than £0.5 million?
There must be.
Could we have it?
Yes.
Are there any further observations?
Mr. Purcell
I go back to some matters raised by Deputy Bell. From what I know of the accounts for 1999, things within the institute have much improved. Clearly, there is some way to go, but there is no doubt that there has been a lot of movement in the right direction. It is only fair to put these matters in context. I have tried to introduce some balance to the debate.
The Chairman made some comments about the Labour Relations Commission. The comments reported in the newspapers were those of individual staff members, they were not the views of the commission. The Dublin Institute of Technology, in conjunction with the Teachers Union of Ireland, has made significant progress towards a partnership arrangement which we look forward to coming to fruition.
They may be comments in newspapers, but you did say that management accepted that there were problems and that you were dealing with them.
Yes.
While you did not accept that the college was facing an alternative crisis, you did accept that there were deficiencies within the system which you have sought to rectify.
Absolutely.
The appointment of heads of communication and human resources is an acceptance that there were problems. Is that correct?
The newspaper report was incorrect. We have not yet appointed a communications officer. We need the sanction of the Department of Education and Science to do so. The appointment of a head of human resources has reached final interview stage.
Most of your staff were interviewed.
No, less than 10% were interviewed.
Were up to 140 people in the college interviewed?
Out of a staff of 2,000.
It is a substantial number.
Yes, but it must be remembered that comments can be made by one individual. Our view is that this is a confidential report, commissioned by the Dublin Institute of Technology and the TUI, and one of the conditions is that we do not engage in public debate or use the report in any selective or unhelpful way. It is supposed to be helpful in bringing about a partnership relationship. We are moving in that direction.
The reason I introduce this matter is we are discussing the accounts for 1998, an historical document for the committee. It appears that there are deficiencies on the finances side. It is hard for us to ignore something which appears to be in the public domain, a document which I have accessed and studied, and reveals certain difficulties within the college. We wish you well in sorting them out.
Thank you.
I thank you and your officials for your attendance. We look forward to receiving a copy of your report for 1999 in June. No doubt, we will meet you again in the future.
The witness withdrew.