STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL REVIEW NORTH CAROLINA TEACHERS AND STATE EMPLOYEES COMPREHENSIVE MAJOR MEDICAL PLAN RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA OCTOBER 2001 OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR RALPH CAMPBELL, JR. STATE AUDITOR

SPECIAL REVIEW NORTH CAROLINA TEACHERS AND STATE EMPLOYEES COMPREHENSIVE MAJOR MEDICAL PLAN RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA OCTOBER 2001

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Office of the State Auditor Ralph Campbell, Jr. State Auditor 2 S. Salisbury Street 20601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-0601 Telephone: (919) 807-7500 Fax: (919) 807-7647 Internet http://www.osa.state.nc.us LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL October 29, 2001 The Honorable Michael F. Easley, Governor The Honorable Anthony E. Rand, Senator, Co-Chair, The Committee on Employee Hospital and Medical Benefits The Honorable Thomas E. Wright, Representative, Co-Chair, The Committee on Employee Hospital and Medical Benefits The Honorable Jim Long, Commissioner, Department of Insurance Members of the North Carolina General Assembly Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to General Statute 147-64.6(c)(16), we have completed our special review into allegations concerning the activities of the North Carolina Teachers and State Employees Comprehensive Major Medical Plan s Executive Administrator. The results of our review, along with recommendations for corrective actions, are contained in this report. General Statute 147-64.6(c)(12) requires the State Auditor to provide the Governor, the Attorney General, and other appropriate officials with written notice of apparent instances of violations of penal statutes or apparent instances of malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance by an officer or employee. In accordance with that mandate, and our standard operating practice, we are providing copies of this special review to the Governor, the Attorney General and other appropriate officials. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Campbell, Jr., CFE State Auditor

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION...1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...5 STATEMENT OF QUESTIONED COSTS...19 EXHIBITS...21 RESPONSE FROM THE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NORTH CAROLINA TEACHERS AND STATE EMPLOYEES COMPREHENSIVE MAJOR MEDICAL PLAN. 27 DISTRIBUTION OF AUDIT REPORT...35

INTRODUCTION We received an allegation through the State Auditor s Hotline concerning the possible violation of State regulations governing contracts with consultants, the violation of the agency vendor paid travel regulations, as well as the possible unprofessional conduct on behalf of the Executive Administrator of the North Carolina Teachers and State Employees Comprehensive Major Medical Plan, also known as the Health Plan. We began an investigation of the complaints in June 2001 and used the following procedures to conduct this special review: Interviews with current and former employees of the Health Plan. Interviews with individuals external to the Health Plan. Examination of North Carolina General Statutes and Administrative Code, and State Health Benefits Office Plan General Guidelines. Examination of Health Plan records and documents related to the allegations and concerns expressed above. This report presents the results of our Special Review. The review was conducted pursuant to G.S. 147-64.6(c)(16) rather than a financial audit. The Health Plan s annual audit coverage is accomplished through the audit of the State Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. General Statute Chapter 135, Article 3, established the Health Plan. The Health Plan is a selffunded indemnity plan charged with administering a health benefits program for active and retired teachers, state employees and their dependents. The Health Plan has approximately 450,000 current enrollees. The Health Plan operating revenues for fiscal year 2000-2001, 1

INTRODUCTION (CONTINUED) totaled approximately $977 million and operating expenditures totaled approximately $1 billion. The Executive Director of the Health Plan is appointed by the North Carolina Commissioner of Insurance, upon the advice of the executive committee of the General Assembly s Committee on Employee Hospital and Medical Benefits. The Executive Administrator s duties and responsibilities are outlined in the General Statutes. The Executive Administrator is responsible for (1) Cost management programs; (2) Education and illness prevention programs; (3) Training programs for Health Benefit Representatives; (4) Membership functions; (5) Long-range planning; (6) Provider and participant relations; and (7) Communications. The Health Plan has also adopted medical policies to further define the benefits for members listed in the General Statutes. The Statutes require the Executive Administrator to consult with the Board of Trustees and the Committee on Employee Hospital and Medical Benefits prior to making any major decisions on Plan Administration. General Statute 135-39 established the Health Plan s Board of Trustees, consisting of nine members, to oversee Health Plan operations and advise the Executive Administrator. The major areas of concern are changes in overall policies, medical policies, and reviews of appeals. The Committee on Employee Hospital and Medical Benefits consists of twelve members of the North Carolina Legislature and is charged with review of programs of hospital, medical, and related care as recommended by the Executive Administrator and Board of Trustees. 2

INTRODUCTION (CONCLUDED) Employees of the Legislative Services Commission and employees of the Office of State Budget, Planning and Management make up an Oversight Team that is responsible for the oversight and review of Health Plan activities as directed by the Committee on Employee Hospital and Medical Benefits. The Health Plan contracts with a Claims Processing Contractor to collect premiums, process claims, and administer cost containment programs such as pre-admission certification. The Health Plan also contracts with a Case Management Contractor for services other than mental health, diabetes and cardiac disease management, which are managed by other case management contractors. The Health Plan contracts with a Pharmaceutical Benefits Manager to manage member prescriptions. In addition, the Health Plan was authorized in 1991 to enter into a preferred provider arrangement with hospitals across the state in an effort to reduce costs to the Plan. The hospitals agreed to provide both inpatient and outpatient services to state employees at a reduced rate. The Health Plan employs an average of 11 staff members and operates on an administrative budget totaling approximately $29 million. 3

[ This Page Left Blank Intentionally ] 4

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR ACCEPTED HONORARIUMS, GIFTS AND TRAVEL EXPENSES FROM VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS. We identified at least four instances when the Executive Administrator traveled outof-state or out-of-town at the expense of either current or potential vendors. In March 2001, a national pharmaceutical manufacturer paid for the Executive Administrator to travel to Orlando, Florida to attend a meeting. The purpose of the meeting was for the company to explain the benefits of two of its manufactured drugs. The approximate cost for this three-day trip totaled $2,462.94 (Exhibit 1). Included in the approximate cost was a $1,100 honorarium paid to the Executive Administrator. This vendor manufactures and distributes a pharmaceutical that has been reviewed and denied for addition to the Health Plan s Preferred Drug List, as well as several that are currently on the list. The Executive Administrator, with the guidance of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, determines which drugs are selected for the Preferred Drug List. The acceptance of trips or honorariums from a company that could profit from an association with the Health Plan creates the potential for the appearance of impropriety. Additionally, the State s Pharmaceutical Benefits Manager paid for the Executive Administrator and his wife to attend a three-day client conference in Laguna Nigel, California in April 2001. Expenses for air, transportation, hotel, golf packages, and meals for this trip totaled $2,882.81 (Exhibit 2). 5

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) We also identified an out of state vendor paid trip to Atlanta, Georgia that included a golf and gift package. According to the vendor s accounting manager, value of the trip for the Executive Administrator totaled $623.33. This amount included hotel, airfare, mileage, meals, transportation, golf, and a gift (Exhibit 3). In addition, we noted the Executive Administrator attended a golf tournament in Southern Pines, North Carolina, sponsored by the Claims Processing Contractor and a pharmaceutical company. The Executive Administrator played in the tournament as a guest and at the expense of a different pharmaceutical manufacturer. The cost for the Executive Administrator s participation is estimated at $373 for food, golf, and a player package (Exhibit 4). The Executive Administrator s acceptance of sponsored trips, gifts, or honorariums is a direct violation of the State Health Plan Benefits Office General Guidelines as established by him in December 1999. The policy states, No honorariums, gifts, or vendor paid travel are to be accepted (Exhibit 5). Additionally, the North Carolina Budget Manual, section 6, states, A state employee shall not accept an honorarium for an activity where the activity can be construed as having a relationship to the employee s state position. The policy explains that, A relationship exists between the activity and the employee s state position if but for that employee s state position, the employee would not participate in the activity in the same manner or capacity. The enforcement of such regulations decreases the 6

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) appearance of impropriety that can be created by receipt of gifts of monetary value from an existing or potential vendor. Finally, the Executive Administrator s acceptance of honorariums, gifts, golf packages, and travel may have violated G.S. 132-32(a). That statute makes it unlawful, subject to certain exceptions enumerated in the statute, for any officer or employee of a governmental agency charged with the duty of: (1) Preparing plans, specifications, or estimates of public contracts; (2) Awarding or administering public contracts; or (3) Inspecting or supervising construction to willfully receive gifts or favors from contractors and suppliers who have a contract with a governmental agency, had a contract, or who anticipate bidding on a contract. Violation of the statute is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The Executive Administrator s response to inquiries regarding violation of the abovementioned policies was that he had not intended the office policy to include his own activities. Based on the Health Plan policy, and State guidelines, we believe the entire identified amount of $6,342.08 for vendor (or potential vendor) paid trips, gifts, and honorariums violated the State Health Plan s Guidelines and the State Budget Manual. In addition, the activities may have violated G.S.132-32(a). 7

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) RECOMMENDATION We recommend the Executive Administrator and Health Plan staff adhere to all applicable statutes and regulations regarding vendor paid travel, gifts, and honorariums, and that they avoid the appearance of impropriety. We also recommend that the Executive Administrator not consider himself exempt from office guidelines, unless specifically stated and approved by the Oversight Committee. We recommend that the Health Plan s Board of Trustees, in consultation with the legislative Committee on Employee Hospital and Medical Benefits, develop a comprehensive conflict of interest policy for the Executive Administrator and the Health Plan staff. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZED A CONSULTANT TO BEGIN WORK PRIOR TO THE CREATION AND SIGNING OF A FORMAL CONTRACT. According to the Executive Administrator, on February 15, 2001, the State Health Plan Board of Trustees held an emergency meeting to discuss lowering the costs of hospital expenses for enrollees in the health care indemnity program. One recommendation authorized by the Board was to renegotiate the hospital and physician preferred provider contracts. Per North Carolina General Statute 135-49.4A(f), the Executive Administrator is authorized to renegotiate such contracts. The Executive Administrator said he believed that no Health Plan staff member other than himself had the necessary experience to renegotiate the 140 plus hospital reimbursement contracts. He also felt he could not accomplish his other duties in 8

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) addition to the renegotiations. He contacted two current contractors to determine if they had staff resources to aid in the contract renegotiations. Neither company could provide qualified staff, however, the Claims Processing Contractor recommended a private consultant. According to the Plan s Controller, on May 15, 2001, she received an invoice for payment for the consultant s work beginning March 22, 2001, and continuing until April 12, 2001. The total payment request was $31,597.76. The Controller stated she requested supporting documentation for the invoice and was presented with a contract dated May 14, 2001 (32 days after the work began). The Controller responded to the request with a memorandum stating she was not comfortable disbursing funds for the contractual services based upon the documentation she was provided. In addition, the Controller stated she had discussed the issue with a budget analyst at the Office of State Budget, Planning and Management and staff at the Office of Purchase and Contract. The Controller issued the check for the consultant only after repeated requests by the Executive Administrator. The Deputy Executive Administrator also issued a memorandum stating he had not been involved in the hiring of the consultant with the exception of advising the Executive Administrator that special rules for hiring consultants exist. He also noted he was instructing the Controller to prepare the check only at the Executive Administrator s directive. The Health Plan subsequently received an opinion from the Office of the Attorney General that the special rules pertaining to consultant contracts are not applicable to the Health Plan. 9

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) According to the Vice President of State Operations of the Health Plan s Claims Processing Contractor, the Executive Administrator contacted her office and inquired if her company would pay the consultant and the Health Plan would reimburse the company as a part of their contract. The VP said she informed the Executive Administrator that her company was not comfortable paying the consultant and being reimbursed by the Health Plan. The VP said her company wanted to distance itself from the renegotiation process and therefore would not pay the consultant directly. On July 24, 2001, the Executive Administrator issued a memorandum requesting final payment to the hospital consultant in the amount of $24,551.84. Thus the entire contract cost the Health Plan a total of $56,149.60 for the period from March 22, 2001 through May 14, 2001. The entirety of the consultant s work was performed prior to the signing of the contract. RECOMMENDATION We recommend the Health Plan s Executive Administrator ensure formal contracts are authorized and signed prior to initiating consultant work and/or payment. Written documentation of contract specifications, including work to be performed, rates of pay, established timelines, and all other terms should be detailed in writing before beginning work. We also recommend the Executive Administrator refrain from requesting contractors to pay for consultant services outside the scope of existing contracts. 3. SEVERAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO CONTRACT 10

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT DOCUMENTED CONTRACT ADDENDA. During the course of fieldwork, we noted several of the Health Plan s contracts with vendors in which the specifications as stated on the original Request for Proposals (RFP s) are not being followed in actual performance of the contracts. State contract specifications are based on the RFP s and in most cases, the original RFP and accepted bid proposal serve as the actual contract for services. Pharmacy Intern The Executive Administrator authorized the Claims Processing Contractor to hire a pharmacy intern at the cost of $18.00 per hour, 40 hours a week for the months of June, July, and August for a total cost of $8,640 with the understanding that the Health Plan will reimburse the contractor for the intern s payment. We found no evidence this agreement was ever documented. The Health Plan may want to evaluate other alternatives that are already available for attaining pharmaceutical personnel, since the contract with the Pharmacy Benefits Manager states, The Contractor shall provide a pharmacist and other personnel to work with the Committee and the Plan as needed. The Executive Administrator s response to this issue is a Claims Processing Contractor employee told him contract addenda had not been created for similar issues in the past. He also stated he did not consult with Health Plan or Purchase and 11

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) Contract staff to inquire about the matter since this was not a consultant contract that would have to comply with specific Purchase and Contract regulations. Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Management The Contractor s response to the Health Plan s original RFP for the Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Management pilot program states that, A participation rate of no less than 35% must be guaranteed by the Offeror, for Health Plan enrollees. The Deputy Executive Administrator stated 35% of the randomly selected program candidates equals 3,500 participants as the required target participation for the vendor s services. However, review of the minutes for the May 16, 2001 State Health Plan s Board of Trustees meeting reflect the vendor is not being held to the RFP specifications. The minutes state the vendor s, Goal is to have 2,500 participants by the end of June. No documented contract addendum has been identified to lower the requirements guaranteed by the vendor. While the drop in participants from 3,500 to 2,500 has no direct impact on cost to the Health Plan with this vendor, other vendors may have submitted bids if the original number of participants required was only 2,500. A Fiscal Research Analyst also serving on the Health Plan Oversight Team stated a contract addendum is needed in this situation. The Executive Administrator s response is disease management contracts do not fall under consultant contract services; therefore they do not have to comply with Purchase and Contracts regulations and contract addenda are not required. 12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) Also included in the contractor s RFP Project Management and Administrative Fees section is the requirement for the vendor to pay for stationary used in its services on behalf of the State. However, the Executive Administrator authorized the contractor to use the Health Plan s stationary and envelopes for mailings to five thousand plus potential enrollees in the Diabetic and Cardiovascular Disease Management Program. The Health Plan s Controller stated upon reviewing the invoice for the stationary items from Department of Correction (which provides the stationary) she contacted the Deputy Executive Administrator and they decided to deduct the amount from the next payment to the contractor. They also stated they expressed their concern to the Executive Administrator regarding this noncompliance with the contract. Again, the Executive Administrator stated since the Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Management contract is not a consultant contract it is not required to adhere to the Purchase and Contract regulations and contract addenda are not required. He also stated the amount for the stationary had been paid by the vendor so he found no issue with the charge. Although these contracts do not fall under the Purchase and Contract definition of a consultant contract and therefore are not required to follow Purchase and Contract regulations regarding modification of an existing contract, we take issue with the lack of documentation to support the changes in specifications. Written documentation verifying approval and details regarding the changes would be beneficial if the terms of the contracts were ever contested. Additionally, a 1994 Office of the State Auditor 13

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) Performance Audit of the Health Plan found at least eight changes to original contracts which have been negotiated by the Executive Administrator with no involvement from P & C [Purchase and Contract]. In light of the 1994 audit finding regarding undocumented or unauthorized changes to existing contracts, welldocumented contract addenda would eliminate any confusion over the actual terms of contracts and guarantee that all necessary levels of approval have been met. RECOMMENDATION We recommend any and all changes to vendor/consultant contracts be appropriately approved and documented. Any changes to existing contracts need to be written as contract addenda and follow the appropriate channels for authorization. Vendors with existing contracts with the Health Plan should be held to the original specifications in the RFP s or contracts for which they were approved. 4. SEVERAL PEOPLE REPORTED THE EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR HAS EXHIBITED UNPROFESSIONAL OR OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR. Several current and former Health Plan employees reported that the Executive Administrator made derogatory comments or asked inappropriate questions concerning coworkers. Two employees stated the Executive Administrator used expletives or derogatory names referring to other coworkers in their presence. Another Health Plan employee stated the Executive Administrator made inappropriate comments to her regarding a personal relationship between two of the 14

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) employees. This employee stated she was very uncomfortable with the line of conversation and did not reply to his comments. Several employees stated that on the Executive Administrator s first day of work, he requested individual meetings with office employees. These employees reported the Executive Administrator asked them inappropriate questions regarding their opinions or knowledge of the personal lives and characteristics of other employees during that initial meeting. For example, one employee reported that the Executive Administrator asked, Who don t you like in this office and why? In response to the above allegations, the Executive Administrator stated that he has not used disparaging names or terms regarding employees in front of other individuals. He also stated that his intention for questioning the employees about what they thought of each other was to find out how each staff member operates as a team player. He said he was given the directive upon being employed to change the Country Club atmosphere that supposedly existed at the Health Plan. Also noted during interviews, several individuals reported concerns regarding behavior exhibited in the office and on site at vendor or potential vendor locations. One instance that was mentioned several times occurred in a March 2001 meeting at the Claims Processing Contractor s (CPC) office with State Health Plan employees, CPC staff, and Case Management Contractor representatives in attendance. According to individuals present at the meeting, the Executive Administrator became 15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) very agitated with one of his staff members and raised his voice repeatedly, questioning the staff member in a derogatory manner. According to one CPC employee, the behavior was uncalled for and very unprofessional in her opinion. The employee stated that it became an uncomfortable situation for the vendor employees. A CPC supervisor stated that several employees present at the meeting were upset enough to approach her to discuss the events. The Executive Administrator stated he did get very upset at a vendor during that particular meeting and raised his voice but stopped short of exhibiting what he considered unprofessional behavior. He added he later contacted vendor representatives present at the meeting to apologize for his conduct and was told it had not been a problem. Another state employee reported the Executive Administrator s behavior was so rude and unprofessional on a site visit to a potential vendor that he felt compelled to return after the visit and apologize for the Executive Administrator s behavior. Several employees said they were offended by a plaque in the Executive Administrator s office. The Executive Administrator said the plaque was given to 16

him by his former staff in Louisiana. He said he removed the plaque once he was informed some staff members were offended by the plaque. In addition, he said he never openly displayed the plaque. Since we began our special review of the allegations originally presented to us, several employees have filed formal grievances against the Executive Administrator. The Executive Administrator said he agreed to mediate the employees concerns, but they rejected his offer and moved forward in commencing personnel actions. RECOMMENDATION We recommend the Executive Administrator refrain from exhibiting unprofessional conduct towards state employees, as well as current or potential vendor staff members, which might be detrimental to state service. A good working relationship with staff as well as contractors and vendors is essential to the success of the Health Plan for the benefit of all Program enrollees. In addition, we recommend the Executive Administrator remove any and all items from state property that could be considered offensive in nature by an employee. It is to the benefit of the Health Plan that employees work in a discernibly bias free work environment. 17

[ This Page Left Blank Intentionally ] 18

Statement of Questioned Costs The following schedule represents a quantification of the items examined during our special review. We cannot completely quantify the tangible benefits or detriment, if any, to the Health Plan resulting from the findings of our review. We are simply noting areas where the system of internal control was either circumvented or should be enhanced, or where, in our judgment, questionable activities or practices occurred. 1. The Executive Administrator violated the office policy regarding acceptance of vendor paid travel, gifts, and honorariums. $ 6,342.08 2. The Executive Administrator hired a consultant without a written contract. 56,149.60 3. Additional pharmacy personnel added to Claims Processing Contractor contract without a documented addendum. 8,640.00 $ 71,131.68 19

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally] 20

21 Exhibit 1

22 Exhibit 2

23 Exhibit 3

24 Exhibit 4

25 Exhibit 5

[This Page Left Blank Intentionally] 26

27 Response from State Health Plan

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

DISTRIBUTION OF AUDIT REPORT In accordance with G.S. 147-64.5 and G.S. 147-64.6(c)(14), copies of this report have been distributed to the public officials listed below. Additional copies are provided to other legislators, state officials, the press, and the general public upon request. EXECUTIVE BRANCH The Honorable Michael F. Easley The Honorable Beverly M. Perdue The Honorable Richard H. Moore The Honorable Roy A. Cooper, III Mr. David T. McCoy Mr. Robert L. Powell The Honorable Jim Long Governor of North Carolina Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina State Treasurer Attorney General State Budget Officer State Controller Commissioner of Insurance LEGISLATIVE BRANCH Appointees to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations Senator Marc Basnight, Co-Chairman Senator Charlie Albertson Senator Frank W. Ballance, Jr. Senator Charles Carter Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter Senator Walter H. Dalton Senator James Forrester Senator Linda Garrou Senator Wilbur P. Gulley Senator Kay R. Hagan Senator David W. Hoyle Senator Luther H. Jordan, Jr. Senator Ellie Kinnaird Senator Howard N. Lee Senator Jeanne H. Lucas Senator R. L. Martin Senator William N. Martin Senator Stephen M. Metcalf Senator Fountain Odom Senator Aaron W. Plyler Senator Eric M. Reeves Senator Dan Robinson Senator Larry Shaw Senator Robert G. Shaw Senator R. C. Soles, Jr. Senator Ed N. Warren Senator David F. Weinstein Senator Allen H. Wellons Representative James B. Black, Co-Chairman Representative Martha B. Alexander Representative Flossie Boyd-McIntyre Representative E. Nelson Cole Representative James W. Crawford, Jr. Representative William T. Culpepper, III Representative W. Pete Cunningham Representative Beverly M. Earle Representative Ruth M. Easterling Representative Stanley H. Fox Representative R. Phillip Haire Representative Dewey L. Hill Representative Mary L. Jarrell Representative Maggie Jeffus Representative Larry T. Justus Representative Edd Nye Representative Warren C. Oldham Representative William C. Owens, Jr. Representative E. David Redwine Representative R. Eugene Rogers Representative Drew P. Saunders Representative Wilma M. Sherrill Representative Ronald L. Smith Representative Gregg Thompson Representative Joe P. Tolson Representative Russell E. Tucker Representative Thomas E. Wright Representative Douglas Y. Yongue 35

DISTRIBUTION OF AUDIT REPORT (CONCLUDED) The Committee on Hospital and Medical Benefits Senator Anthony E. Rand Representative Thomas E. Wright Senator Charlie Smith Dannelly Senator James S. Forrester Senator Kay R. Hagan Senator David W. Hoyle Senator Aaron W. Plyler Representative Bobby H. Barber, Sr. Representative Beverly Miller Earle Representative John W. Hurley Representative Richard L. Moore Representative Edd Nye Co-Chair Co-Chair Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Other Legislative Officials Representative Phillip A. Baddour, Jr. Senator Anthony E. Rand Senator Patrick J. Ballantine Representative N. Leo Daughtry Representative Joe Hackney Mr. James D. Johnson Majority Leader of the N.C. House of Representatives Majority Leader of the N.C. Senate Minority Leader of the N.C. Senate Minority Leader of the N.C. House of Representatives N. C. House Speaker Pro-Tem Director, Fiscal Research Division Public Release Date 36

ORDERING INFORMATION Copies of this report may be obtained by contacting the: Office of the State Auditor State of North Carolina 2 South Salisbury Street 20601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-0601 Telephone: 919/807-7500 Facsimile: 919/807-7647 E-Mail: reports@ncauditor.net A complete listing of other reports issued by the Office of the North Carolina State Auditor is available for viewing and ordering on our Internet Home Page. To access our information simply enter our URL into the appropriate field in your browser: http://www.osa.state.nc.us. As required for disclosure by G. S. 143-170.1, copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $, or. per copy.