Audit: UNC Hospitals Official Had Discrepancies in Expense Reports
Posted June 28, 2007 12:47 p.m. EDT
Updated June 28, 2007 6:36 p.m. EDT
Raleigh, N.C. — An audit released Thursday found the pharmacy director at UNC Hospitals, which also provides service to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, received travel and phone reimbursements from the hospital and the school for the same expenses.
The audit, which doesn't name the director, also documents several instances where he was reimbursed for travel and phone expenses related to his family, which according to State Auditor Les Merritt, is against state law.
UNC Hospitals' public affairs office confirmed that Director James C. McAllister III is the subject of the auditor's investigation.
The university reimbursed McAllister $1,201.77 for a trip his son took to Las Vegas, according to the audit. McAllister said he unintentionally submitted the expense report and reimbursed the school the full cost of his son’s trip.
McAllister also submitted two expense reports for a business-related trip to Miami, the report found. The hospital and the university each reimbursed him $534.39 for the same airline ticket. On another trip to Cincinnati, the report found, he double-billed the hospital and university for his meals. In both cases, he placed the blame on an administrative assistant.
The audit also found the hospital and university reimbursed McAllister more than $3,400 for phone service on two different lines. According to Merritt, at least one of those phones was used by McAllister's son. The auditor’s office also found a pattern in which he routinely requested reimbursement for the telephone number with the highest monthly charges.
The auditor requested McAllister repay all of the duplicate reimbursements and face punishment from UNC Hospitals. In their response to the audit, UNC Hospitals and UNC-Chapel Hill agreed with the findings and said management is evaluating internal controls.
A letter from UNC Hospitals President Gary Park also said McAllister would be disciplined according to internal policy, but the letter does n't say what the punishment would be.