State of Ohio

Office of the Inspector General
RANDALL J. MEYER, Inspector General

Report of

Investigation

AGENCY: WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY
FILE ID NO.: 2016-CA00002
DATE OF REPORT: DECEMBER 12, 2017

 The Office of the Ohio Inspector General ...
The State Watchdog

“Safeguarding integrity in state government”
The Ohio Office of the Inspector General is authorized by state law to investigate alleged
wrongful acts or omissions committed by state officers or state employees involved in the
management and operation of state agencies. We at the Inspector General’s Office
recognize that the majority of state employees and public officials are hardworking,
honest, and trustworthy individuals. However, we also believe that the responsibilities of
this Office are critical in ensuring that state government and those doing or seeking to do
business with the State of Ohio act with the highest of standards. It is the commitment of
the Inspector General’s Office to fulfill its mission of safeguarding integrity in state
government. We strive to restore trust in government by conducting impartial
investigations in matters referred for investigation and offering objective conclusions
based upon those investigations.
Statutory authority for conducting such investigations is defined in Ohio Revised Code
§121.41 through 121.50. A Report of Investigation is issued based on the findings of the
Office, and copies are delivered to the Governor of Ohio and the director of the agency
subject to the investigation. At the discretion of the Inspector General, copies of the
report may also be forwarded to law enforcement agencies or other state agencies
responsible for investigating, auditing, reviewing, or evaluating the management and
operation of state agencies. The Report of Investigation by the Ohio Inspector General is
a public record under Ohio Revised Code §149.43 and related sections of Chapter 149.
It is available to the public for a fee that does not exceed the cost of reproducing and
delivering the report.
The Office of the Inspector General does not serve as an advocate for either the
complainant or the agency involved in a particular case. The role of the Office is to
ensure that the process of investigating state agencies is conducted completely, fairly, and
impartially. The Inspector General’s Office may or may not find wrongdoing associated
with a particular investigation. However, the Office always reserves the right to make
administrative recommendations for improving the operation of state government or
referring a matter to the appropriate agency for review.
The Inspector General’s Office remains dedicated to the principle that no public servant,
regardless of rank or position, is above the law, and the strength of our government is
built on the solid character of the individuals who hold the public trust.

Randall J. Meyer
Ohio Inspector General

 State of Ohio

Office of the Inspector General
RANDALL J. MEYER, Inspector General

REPORT

OF

INVESTIGATION

FILE ID NUMBER:

2016-CA00002

SUBJECT NAME:

Ron Wine Consulting Group

POSITION:

Contractor

AGENCY:

Wright State University

BASIS FOR INVESTIGATION:

Complaint

ALLEGATIONS:

False Billing

INITIATED:

January 15, 2016

DATE OF REPORT:

December 12, 2017

 INITIAL ALLEGATION AND COMPLAINT SUMMARY
On January 15, 2016, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General met with State Representative Jim
Butler (R- District 41) regarding concerns he had with a contract between Ron Wine Consulting
Group (Wine) and Wright State Applied Research Corporation (WSARC). Butler stated that he
had previously met with Ron Wine to discuss the contract and the work Wine performed on
behalf of WSARC. Butler further stated that during that meeting, Wine presented him with an
account summary showing payments Wine had received from Wright State University between
October 2012 and November 2015. The account summary had two payment columns, one titled
“Amt.Pd.” and the other “Retainer Pd.” The total payments received by Ron Wine totaled
$2,147,798.01.

Rep. Butler provided a copy of the account summary, as well as copies of the contracts, to the
Office of the Ohio Inspector General with concerns that Wine had received payments outside of
the terms of the contract. An investigation was opened upon receipt of the complaint.

BACKGROUND
Wright State Applied Research Corporation
According to Wright State University’s financial statements, WSARC was incorporated in 2004
as a non-profit 501(c)(3) to serve as the contracting authority for the Wright State Research
Institute (WSRI). The purpose of WSARC is to provide “… applied research services such as
business development, total cost accounting and recovery, Federal Acquisition Regulations based
contracting support for large contracts, security support and special facilities for classified
contracts to WSU and WSRI.”

The corporation is governed by an eight-member board of directors comprised of the Wright
State University president, WSU assistant vice president of research, dean of the University
College of Engineering and Computer Science, the WSARC chief executive officer, WSARC
president, and three non-university members elected by the board.

1

 Wright State Research Institute
WSRI is a department within Wright State University reporting directly to the vice president of
research. The CEO of WSARC and executive director of WSRI are the same individual, Dennis
Andersh.

INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY
The Wright State Applied Research Center (WSARC) was formed as an independent 501(c)(3)
non-profit corporation. A review of the structure of the corporation by investigators determined
that WSARC did not maintain sufficient independence from the university to be considered an
independent entity, and instead constituted an arm of the university itself. WSARC employees
were classified as university employees, and paid by the university itself. WSARC did not
maintain its own bank accounts or financial department, instead relying on the already existing
university financial infrastructure. All invoices sent to WSARC were processed and paid by the
university, not WSARC. Additionally, investigators determined that the university did not
maintain a memorandum of understanding or affiliation agreement with WSARC. Instead, the
university, through the CEO and president of WSARC who are university employees, directed
all WSARC activity. Because there are insufficient barriers between WSARC and the
university, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General treated WSARC as a component unit of the
university itself, and not an independent private entity, during the investigation. This assessment
is consistent with how the Ohio Auditor of State evaluated WSARC in its most recent audit of
the university.1

The Office of the Ohio Inspector General requested Wright State University produce all
contracts between the university, or affiliated entities of the university, and Ron Wine or Ron
Wine Consulting. In response, the university provided to investigators two contracts and one
contract modification. The first contract, Subgrant Agreement 12-1034, covered the period from
October 2012 through December of 2013. (Exhibit 1) That contract was modified to extend the
contract period through April 2015. (Exhibit 2) The second contract, WSARC CA-15-020,
covered the period from May 1, 2015, through June 30, 2019. (Exhibit 3) The university
suspended this contract in January 11, 2016. (Exhibit 4)
1

See Audit Report, Wright State Applied Research Center, Ohio Auditor of State, Release January 31, 2017.

2

 A review of the contracts by the Office of the Ohio Inspector General found the following:

Contract #1 - Subgrant Agreement 12-1034
Effective Dates
The effective dates for this agreement are from October 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013,
with the contract expiring at that time, “… unless extended in writing by mutual agreement of
the parties.” On March 27, 2015, a modification was entered into, which “retroactively”
extended the contract expiration date from December 31, 2013, to April 30, 2015. Since the
extension of the contract in writing was not signed until 15 months after the original expiration
date, work should have ceased on December 31, 2013, and invoices should not have been paid
by the university until a new agreement or extension was signed. Payment history provided by
WSU show Ron Wine continued to bill for services, and receive payment from the university,
past the expiration date of the agreement.

Cost of the Contract
The agreement stated, “The total estimated time and materials price for labor expended and costs
and expenses incurred for the performance of this Agreement is $400,000.” However, later in
the agreement it was noted, “This Agreement is incrementally funded in the amount of
$250,000.”

The agreement was silent as to how often the incremental funding was to incur and if there was a
maximum amount. Attached to the contract (Exhibit 1) as “Exhibit A” was a proposed project
description. Section B of “Exhibit A” listed the project budget rate at $250/hour, with an initial
estimate of 60 hours per month. This placed the contract budget for the initial 15-month period
(October 2012- December 2013) at $225,000, well below the estimated expense of $400,000.
The “retroactive” modification entered into on March 27, 2015, did not modify any of the terms
of the underlying contract except for the performance period. Assuming that the same hourly
rate and monthly hours estimated applied, this would increase the estimated budget of the project
by another 16 months, or $240,000, and would bring the total contract estimate cost to $465,000,
or $65,000 over the initial $400,000 estimate cap. As a result, the Office of the Ohio Inspector

3

 General concluded that $400,000 was the maximum allowable amount under the contract, for the
period of October 2012 through April 30, 2015. The $400,000 total allowable cost was the same
cap used by Plante Moran in an independent audit report, although the Office of the Ohio
Inspector General did not rely on that report for this investigation.2

According to university records, during this time period (October 2012-April 2015), Wine was
paid $1,526,448, or $1,126,448 over the amount allowable in the contract.

Further, Article 16.1 of the agreement states,
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with
respect to its subject matter. No prior verbal agreement, conversation, understanding or
representation between any officers, agents, or employees of the Parties either before or
after the execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or
conditions of this Agreement.

This clause specifically forbids the use of verbal contracts to modify the work or fee structure
under this contract. Any payments made to Wine for work performed on behalf of WSARC
could not have been approved by verbal contract during the time period covered by this contact.

Payment of Funds
When submitting invoices for payment, the agreement states each invoice shall contain one of
two certification statements “… signed by a duly authorized representative.” A review of the
invoices submitted by Wine show neither of the required statements appeared on any of the
invoices nor were they signed by Wine or a representative. These invoices should have been
returned to Wine and corrected before WSU processed them for payment.

Scope of Work
The scope of work was provided in “Exhibit A” attached to the agreement. The exhibit listed
several areas of service Wine was to provide to WSARC. However, the scope of work was silent
regarding any administrative work, research, review of local and state newspaper articles, and
2

See Plante Moran WSRI/WSARC Analysis Report, October 3, 2016.

4

 office support. A review of the supporting documentation provided by Wine shows hours related
to these activities were invoiced and paid by WSU. It should be noted this supporting
documentation was not provided by Wine to the university and therefore, neither WSU nor
WSARC would have known they were paying for these services. The agreement should have
clearly defined when these types of services were to be provided and a limitation on hours.
Contract #2 – Agreement WSARC CA-15-020
Effective Dates
The effective dates for this second agreement are from May 1, 2015, to June 30, 2019.

Cost of the Contract
The second agreement similarly did not list an overall “do not exceed” amount. However, in the
project budget it stated the total hours worked per month was not to exceed 480 hours. The
budget also listed three rate categories - $100, $175, and $250. However, it did not list who was
to charge each rate and what services they would perform. Using the maximum rate category of
$250, multiplied by the total maximum monthly hours of 480, the monthly maximum amount
would be $120,000. Over the 50 months of the agreement, the total allowable cost would be
$6,000,000. From May 1, 2015, to the date when the contract was suspended on January 1,
2016, Wine was paid $449,400.
Further, Article 15 of the agreement stated, “This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding
between Consultant and the Client concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior
understandings or agreements.”
While this agreement did not explicitly forbid verbal contract modifications, it did “supersede”
and replace any prior verbal contracts which may have existed prior to May 1, 2015. Therefore,
any payments for work on behalf of WSARC occurring after that date should not have been
approved based on the prior verbal agreement.

5

 Scope of Work
Included in this agreement was information regarding the billing of administrative or office
support work. Specifically, it stated, “Compensation for support services will be done on a caseby-case basis and will require approval of the WSARC CEO prior to commencing work.” A
review conducted by investigators of invoices and supporting documentation submitted and paid
for under this agreement found no indication that approval had been received prior to this type of
work being performed. As a result, WSU should not have paid for support services without
verifying the proper approval had first been obtained prior to the commencement of work.

Contract Performance Bonus
On January 19, 2016, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General interviewed Ron Wine
concerning the payments he had received from the Wright State Applied Research Corporation
(WSARC). During the interview, Wine referred to the account summary document he had
provided to Jim Butler. (Exhibit 5) Wine stated that the two separate payment columns
represented two separate contracts for consulting and business development work he was
performing for WSARC. Wine stated that he had a written contract for hours worked, but that he
also had a verbal “retainer” contract that he “… applied hours to, but never really billed it as
hours. It was just billed against a purchase order.”
Wine told investigators that he had an “understanding” with David Hopkins, president of Wright
State University, that Wine’s firm would obtain “about 5% of the workload.” Wine stated that
he would meet every six months with Ryan Fendley, WSU director of Operations and Strategic
Initiatives, and together they would decide what the 5 percent “retainer” amount would be. Wine
noted that typically, the amount was 5 percent of the total of funds Wine had generated for the
university through grants and other funding sources during the previous six months. Wine added
that the payments were made retrospectively, and not in advance. Wine informed investigators
that the agreement establishing the amount of the “retainer” was generally approved verbally.
However, Wine noted that he had an email which he had sent to Fendley memorializing his
agreement specifying the amount of the “retainer” for 2013. (Exhibit 6) The email, dated
January 23, 2013, confirms the “retainer” amount of $14,750. Although Wine characterized this
as a “retainer” in his interview and in documentation provided to the Office of the Ohio Inspector

6

 General, in a recent lawsuit filed by Wine against WSU, Wine characterizes the 5 percent
payments as a “… performance-based bonus of 5% of new research related revenue…3” This
email was followed by another email on March 12, 2013, sent by Fendley to former WSU Chief
Legal Counsel Gwen Mattison, explaining an increase in Wine’s “compensation” from “just
under ~$9,000” to “$14,750” as “compensation fluctuation as a function of the statement of
work.” (Exhibit 7)
A review conducted by investigators of Ryan Fendley’s email box discovered emails, dating as
far back as July 2010, between Fendley, Wine, and former WSU Provost Sundaram Narayanan
discussing awarding a 5 percent “performance bonus” to Ron Wine Consulting Group “based on
past performance and total funding” generated for WSRI and WSARC. In a July 30, 2010,
email, Wine suggested making contract language regarding the performance bonus read “…
more like an adjustment of the monthly retainer based on management of projects and external
partnerships.” (Exhibit 8) However, in a March 17, 2011, email to Fendley, Wine stated that his
2008 contract included both a monthly retainer and a 5-percent performance bonus. (Exhibit 9)
Wright State University was unable to provide to investigators a copy of this contract.

On May 11, 2016, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General interviewed David Hopkins, former
president of Wright State University.4 Hopkins stated that the university had approached Wine
and had “engaged him on a retainer in 2009” to create an economic development framework for
the university. Hopkins stated that the “retainer” in 2009 was a flat rate of $6,000 a month, or
$72,000 for that year. Hopkins noted that a contract with Wine was never presented before the
board of trustees for the university, but that Fendley had “ultimate authority to enter into” a
contract with Wine. Hopkins added that he never met with Wine to discuss payments outside of
the contract with WSARC, but he also stated that, “… it’s always been the retainer and then he
had a contract with [WSARC] that was specifically defined.” When asked if Wine had a twopayment contract, with one payment being a flat monthly rate and another payment representing

See, Plaintiff’s Complaint, Ron Wine, et al. v. Wright State University, et al., 2016-00698, Ohio Court of Claims.
Hopkins was president of the university at the time the interview was conducted, but has since been removed from
that position, and is no longer with WSU.
3
4

7

 hours worked, Hopkins stated, “I don’t know. I know that we’ve done both of those at one time
or another, yes.”

Other Payments to Wine Consulting
The Office of the Ohio Inspector General identified payments made from WSU to Ron Wine
prior to the above-discussed contracts. On request, WSU was unable to provide a contract or
supporting documentation for these payments. Without proper documentation, the Office of
Ohio Inspector General could not determine the validity of these payments, and therefore
considered them to be questionable. The Office of the Ohio Inspector General identified
$403,028.37 in payments made from WSU to Ron Wine from March 2009 through September
2012 that did not include proper documentation such as a verifiable contract.

Invoice Review
Investigators reviewed all of the invoices submitted by Wine and paid by WSU under both
contracts and found questionable issues. It should be noted that supporting documentation was
provided by Wine to the Office of the Ohio Inspector General. This documentation was not
included in the information provided by WSU when investigators requested copies of all
invoices and supporting materials. Results of the review by investigators revealed the following
issues:

Underbillings
While the first agreement stated, “Initial estimate of hours to be worked per month under this
agreement is 60,” there was no clause stating that more than 60 hours per month could be
billed. From October 2012 to September 2013, Wine is shown to have billed only 60 hours.
A review of the supporting documentation for October 2012 showed Wine attended various
meetings totaling 62 hours, but only billed for 60. As a result, Wine underbilled WSU for
two hours, totaling $500.

8

 Double Billings
Included in the supporting documentation were notes made by Wine regarding hours charged
for administrative costs and office support stating the hours should be charged to the
“retainer.” When the Office of the Ohio Inspector General reviewed the hours Wine attended
for meetings and what he charged for his administrative costs compared to what was billed, it
was determined that some of the hours he listed as “retainer” hours were included in the
invoice for work performed under Contract #1 - Subgrant Agreement 12-1034.

For example, in April 2014, per the support documentation provided by Wine (Exhibit 10),
he listed the following: 56 hours for meetings, 106 administrative hours, 100 hours for work
performed by Deb Wine “per retainer,” and 60 hours for “Prog (sic) support, BD (DDT) per
retainer” for a total of 322 hours. On the invoice, Wine listed 247 hours at $250 per hour, to
be billed for a total of $61,750. However, the total hours for the cost categories not identified
as “retainer” only totaled 162. When one subtracts the total hours billed (247) minus the
meeting and administrative hours (162), there are 85 hours that Wine identified as “retainer”
hours that are billed on the “retainer” invoice. Therefore, these hours were billed on both the
hourly pay invoice and the “retainer” invoice, meaning Wine was paid twice for the work
performed.

The Office of the Ohio Inspector General identified five invoices totaling $63,250 where
hours identified as “retainer” were billed on both the hourly invoice and the “retainer”
invoice, which constituted double billing.

Unallowed Costs
Contract #2 - WSARC CA-15-020 stated any support work performed needed to be preapproved before work commenced. The supporting documentation provided by Wine did not
show where any pre-approval was obtained from the WSARC CEO before the work was
performed. These costs were billed at the $100/hour rate, except on two occasions where
part of the hours were charged at the $175/hour rate with no explanation given on why some
of the hours merited a higher rate. Therefore, Wine billed 1,018 hours for a total of $139,950
in unallowable costs from May 2015 to the contract suspension in January 2016.

9

 Questionable Costs
When reviewing the supporting documentation provided by Wine, it was noted that each
month Wine include a line stating “admin, research, travel, communications, writing, etc.”
and a total number of hours attributed to him each month. However, no additional support
documentation was provided detailing the work performed or the dates and hours when the
work occurred.

Additionally, each month Wine provided a one-page document from Deb Wine showing her
hours worked by week with a statement noting the hours were for research, office support,
and news clippings. It should be noted that the hours attributed to Deb Wine totaled 100
hours each month over the total time period under review.

Due to the lack of supporting documentation detailing the alleged work performed, the Office
of the Ohio Inspector General lists 726 hours, totaling $181,500 in questionable billings.
In total, investigators show the following after a review of the invoices:
Category

Hours

Payments to Wine prior to October
2012 without proper documentation
Contract #1-Unallowable 5 percent
Performance Bonus

___

$403,028.37

___

$1,126,448

Contract #1- Double Billings

253

Contract #1- Underbillings

-2
1,018

Total Cost

$63,250
(Included in Unallowable
Performance Bonus)
-$500
$139,950

Contract #2- Unauthorized Costs
Contract #2- Questionable Payments

726

$181,500

TOTAL

1995

$1,850,426.37

Most of the supporting documentation provided by Wine included handwritten notes
indicating items that were to be billed and the amount “per RF,” “per Ryan F,” “per Ryan,”
etc. During Wine’s interview with the Office of the Ohio Inspector General, Wine stated he

10

 received verbal approval of his “retainer” rates from Fendley every six months. Investigators
requested to speak to Ryan Fendley through his attorney, but the request was denied.

Source of Funding
A review of the funding sources used to pay Wine revealed all the payments that he had received
came out of a $16 million dollar “Workforce Development Fund” established by the state
legislature and awarded to WSU in $4 million dollar increments over four years. WSU was
unable to provide any information regarding the funding source of payments made prior to 2012.

The Ohio General Assembly created the Defense/Aerospace Workforce Development Initiative
in 2012 with the stated purpose of developing a “… strategic plan to align the University System
of Ohio’s research and workforce development assets with workforce needs of public and private
sector employees.” A portion of the total fund was awarded to WSU to “… support the
Aerospace Professional Development Center to establish process necessary to link
underemployed or unemployed persons to job openings in these industries.”5 A memorandum of
understanding between the Ohio Department of Higher Education6 and the Dayton Area
Graduate Studies Institute identified the moneys used by the legislature to create the Workforce
Development Fund as “… Casino Licensing funds, which must be used in accordance with the
Ohio Constitution.” The Ohio Constitution, Article XV, Section 6(C)(4) restricts casino license
funds to “… state economic development programs which support regional job training efforts to
equip Ohio’s workforce with additional skills to grow the economy.”

The work Wine was contracted to perform was to secure funding development for WSU and
WSARC; and specifically, to obtain private or public grant funds for defense research.
However, during the course of the investigation, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General
reviewed a document listing all of the grant sources Wine reported he secured and had submitted
as part of his law suit against WSARC.7 Cited in this document of grant sources was the

5

See, Amended Substitute House Bill No. 59, 130th General Assembly.
At the time the MOU was entered the Ohio Department of Higher Education was known as the Ohio Board of
Regents.
7
See, Plaintiff’s Complaint, Exhibit 4, Ron Wine, et al. v. Wright State University, et al., 2016-00698, Ohio Court
of Claims.
6

11

 Workforce Development funds that Wine was ultimately paid from. However, the other funds
listed in the document did not specifically relate to job creation, training, staff augmentation, or
connecting underemployed or unemployed Ohioans with public or private employers. Instead,
the funds listed appeared to be for scientific-based research projects, like remote piloted aircraft,
neuroscience imaging, and establishing research networks. There is no evidence that Wine
materially participated in any workforce development projects.
In one instance, regarding a DARPA8 grant application, Aaron Miller, project manager for
WSRI, said he specifically stated to Fendley in an email that he did not want to include Wine on
the grant application because Wine would “… stick out like a sore thumb raising questions on
cost.” (Exhibit 11) In a telephone interview conducted on November 1, 2017, Miller stated that
he felt pressure from Fendley and Narayanan to include Wine on all grant proposals. Miller
stated that he was constantly trying to avoid Wine, as he felt Wine did not add any value to his
projects. When asked about his email to Fendley, Miller stated that he felt Wine was a general
strategy contractor, not a technical expert, and as such, he should be paid out of WSARC’s
general overhead funds, and not specific project funds.
An analysis of the hard drive from Fendley’s computer revealed an Excel spreadsheet titled
“Workforce Development Funding Budget.” In that document, Ron Wine is classified as being
paid for “AFRL Future Focus Plan.” The budgeted amount for “RWCG” (Ron Wine Consulting
Group) is $275,000 each year of the fund. The line item “Job Creation” and “Talent Attraction”
do not have any related contractors, other than Dennis Andersh, the CEO of WSARC, who was
budgeted to receive $313,720 dollars each year of the fund.

CONCLUSION
The Office of the Ohio Inspector General received a complaint from State Representative Jim
Butler regarding contract issues between Wright State University and Ron Wine Consulting
Group. Based on the unusual payment structure, an investigation was opened.

8

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is an agency within the United States Department of Defense tasked
with researching and developing emerging technologies.

12

 It was determined that Ron Wine had been paid in excess of $2.3 million since at 2009. Over
$1.8 million were identified as overpayments, unsupported payments, unauthorized payments, or
questionable payments. Upon investigators’ request, Wright State University (WSU) could only
produce two contracts for consulting services with Ron Wine Consulting Group over that time.
The first contract specified a cap at $400,000; however, WSU paid a total of $1,126,448 over the
contracted amount. Wine claimed a verbal contract covered extra payments for work performed
on behalf of WSARC. However, the contract in effect from October 1, 2012, to April 30, 2015,
explicitly disallows verbal contracts and agreements that were unsigned.

Accordingly, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General find reasonable cause to believe that
a wrongful act or omission occurred in these instances.

A review by investigators of the second contract revealed that WSU had paid a total of $449,400;
however, an analysis of the individual invoices related to this contract indicated $321,450 in
unauthorized or questionable costs. Wine stated that he had a verbal agreement to provide the
extra payments for work performed on behalf of WSARC. However, all evidence to support
Wine’s assertion occurred prior to 2015, and the 2015 contract explicitly replaced and
superseded all prior contracts.

Accordingly, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General find reasonable cause to believe that
a wrongful act or omission occurred in these instances.

Investigators determined that a total of $403,028.37 was paid to RWCG prior to the first
contract, and WSU was unable to provide documentation supporting those payments. WSARC,
and by extension Wright State University, failed to institute cost control mechanisms which
would prevent these overpayments, unauthorized payments, and unsupported payments. Instead,
WSU employee Ryan Fendley was granted the authority to approve these contracts and
individual payments without oversight, resulting in overspending.

Accordingly, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General find reasonable cause to believe that
a wrongful act or omission occurred in these instances.

13

 Since 2012, all of the money expended to pay for Ron Wine Consulting Group was obtained
from the Workforce Development Fund, which was created by the Ohio state legislature and
specifically earmarked for the creation of worker training and development programs and general
job creation. From interviews conducted and documents reviewed by investigators, it appeared
that Ron Wine Consulting Group was not involved in any work specified by the Workforce
Development Fund. Instead, it appeared that Wine was solely providing grant finding and
lobbying services to secure additional state and federal funds for WSARC and WSU.

Accordingly, the Office of the Ohio Inspector General find reasonable cause to believe that
a wrongful act or omission occurred in these instances.

RECOMMENDATION(S)
The Office of the Ohio Inspector General makes the following recommendations and asks that
the president of Wright State University respond within 60 days with a plan detailing how these
recommendations will be implemented. Wright State University should:

1. Consider implementing an affiliation agreement between the university and WSRI
and/or WSARC, to better establish a demarcation in finances, duties, and
responsibilities.

2. Consider establishing independent leadership and financial accounts for affiliated
entities, such as WSARC, creating a wall between the university and the affiliated
entity.
3. Consider staffing affiliated entities with their own staff, instead of allowing university
employees to staff independent affiliated entities.

4. Consider hiring outside legal counsel to represent affiliated entities to offer
independent advice on contract terms, instead of using university general counsel.

14

 REFERRALS
This report will be provided to the Ohio Auditor of State and the Greene County prosecutor for
consideration.

15

 State of Ohio

Office of the Inspector General
RANDALL J. MEYER, Inspector General

NAME OF REPORT: Wright State University
FILE ID #: 2016-CA00002

KEEPER OF RECORDS CERTIFICATION
This is a true and correct copy of the report which is required to be prepared
by the Office of the Ohio Inspector General pursuant to Section 121.42 of the
Ohio Revised Code.

Jill Jones
KEEPER OF RECORDS
CERTIFIED
December 12, 2017

Rhodes State Office Tower ◊ 30 East Broad Street – Suite 2940 ◊ Columbus, Ohio 43215-3414
Phone: 614-644-9110 ◊ FAX: 614-644-9504 ◊ Toll Free: 800-686-1525 ◊ Email: oig_watchdog@oig.ohio.gov
The Ohio Inspector General is on the World Wide Web at www.watchdog.ohio.gov

 MAILING ADDRESS

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
JAMES A. RHODES STATE OFFICE TOWER
30 EAST BROAD STREET – SUITE 2940
COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3414

TELEPHONE

(614) 644-9110
IN STATE TOLL- FREE

(800) 686-1525
FAX

(614) 644-9504
EMAIL

OIG_WATCHDOG@OIG.OHIO.GOV
INTERNET

WATCHDOG.OHIO.GOV