2/10/2020 statement murmur>>:

I I email Erasmus 

final statement, full for link
1 message

-- Mon' Fab 2020 '05' AM

"While I was the audit director, I began to find significant problems with the
university's governance, including president Shepard himself violating board policies
and university rules. Shepard's violations were wide-ranging, from his refusal to
provide a simple receipt for a purchase on his reimbursement claim, all the way to
improperly blocking my access to the audit committee chairperson to report on
several issues and violations."

"Upon Shepard forcing me to resign, the full board itself failed to give me any time to
inform them of the violations Shepherd had been committing. The Trustees allowed
Shepard to decimate the functioning of internal audit from the ways that board policy
had designed it to work. And in allowing Shepard to run roughshod over internal
audit, the oversight role--a key responsibility of the board's own governance--itself
also failed. I observed a lack of transparency that continues today, such as the
university closing to the public their Board Audit Committee meetings."

wanted a full trial on the issues about the president's wrongdoings, but I lacked the
personal resources to continue the case in light of the university's ample resources
in creating one legal obstacle after another." They chose a legal maneuver that
forced me into a precarious position, like pulling a rabbit out ofa hat, a tactic they
used to avoid a trial." It was clear to me they wanted to avoid the accountability that
would ensue at a trial.

"Although the university avoided a trial, I stand by the accuracy of the violations
described in the court filing. Most importantly, that was performing the public duties
required of my position, involving difficult audits, that Shepard did not care about."

"Regarding the audit report I completed on Shepard's travel expenses, I included a
sentence that qualified the audit results (informed the report's readers) that I had to
curtail that audit step of obtaining the actual receipt for his expense. The reason for
stating the audit was impaired was because of Shepard's own interference in the
audit by refusing to provide the receipt. That obstacle was similar to other occasions
he interfered with my performance of audits.

Audit standards published by the professional association, enumerate several
core principles including that internal auditors be "objective and free from undue

Hmall gaggle 1/2

2/10/2020

Gmail - final statement, full for link

influence (independent).” University Board policy expressly adopted these essential
safeguards as required protocols for the campus internal audit function: “The OIA
(office of Internal Audit) will govern itself by adherence to the mandatory elements of
the IIA … standards.” The standards continue by giving practical guidance on this
topic by stating, “Objectivity requires that internal auditors do not subordinate their
judgment on audit matters to others.”
The Trustees believed this safeguard to be so important that they exactly repeated it
in the university’s own audit charter, stating that the campus internal auditors shall
not permit the quality of their audits to be compromised and they “will not
subordinate their judgement on audit matters to others.” Shepard’s interferences in
my audits impaired my objectivity because his actions caused fear of what would
happen if I did not go along with his obstructions.
For example, I was in the middle of planning a difficult and sensitive audit of the
soundness of the university’s ethics program for employees. A topic the Trustees
selected for audit. During a meeting with me, Shepard spontaneously remarked
about a methodology in the ethics audit that I was in the middle of planning, where
he said to me, “I would not conduct or carry out those audit steps if I were you.” This
was Shepard’s pattern to impair audit independence, and in doing so, violating
university policy.
I attempted to inform the audit committee of my several concerns at their April 9
meeting, but Shepard cut me off and silenced me. The very next day he forced me
to resign. Informing the Trustees of any and all issues I had found—and I alone
determined to be appropriate (without interference) to report on—was the core of my
professional responsibility. There were several persons at meeting who observed
the muzzling and there is an audio tape of that day. The Trustees never heard my
concerns because Shepard removed me within 24 hours of my attempting to
perform these public duties. My lawsuit was the only effective way to address the
numerous violations of both state statutes and university rules, to correct the
wrongdoings and achieve accountability.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=9ae2ec5cf4&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1658176879555619980&simpl=msg-f%3A16581768795…

2/2