Motorsports Hall of Fame audit finds multiple violations

A recently published audit of the International Motorsports Hall of Fame by the state Examiners of Public Accounts turned up half a dozen findings, but according to Chairman Gerald Dial, most of these are easily explained.

The audit covers the period from Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2014. It was recently published by the state examiners.

It mentions six current findings and one unresolved prior finding. The prior finding “relates to the commission not implementing an approved records disposition authority..

The current findings include failure to abide by provisions of the Open Meetings Act; noncompliance with executive session procedures; failure to post member appointments, resignations and vacancies on the Secretary of State’s website; failure to hold annual meetings as required by law; lack of adequate supporting documentation for disbursements; and failure to comply with the state bid law.

Dial said that the issue with the Open Meetings and executive session laws involveda report from the state examiners in 2008.

Dial said They came to give their report, but they said they couldn’t do it in an open meeting because it wasn’t finished yet.

Rather than send the auditors back to Montgomery and the board members back to their homes all over the state, he decided to go ahead.

The IMHOF Commission also failed to comply with the open meetings act regarding minutes of regular meeting, according to the audit. Dial said this had more to do with timing than anything else, noting that official minutes were not signed and dated until after they had been approved..

As for not posting positions, Dial said this was his responsibility, although the board is appointed exclusively by the governor.

Dial said he didn’t realized that he was supposed to be doing this by law, even though he helped make the law.

Failure to hold an annual meeting was also a decision Dial made in a one-time situation.

Dial said The violation of the bid law involved two emergency purchases and involved wrong wording more than anything else.

The report says the commission “awarded multiple contracts in excess of the bid purchase limit without going through the appropriate bid procedures. The files reviewed did not contain adequate documentation to support the contract was let by free and open competitive bidding by the commission. Furthermore, the commission did not receive sealed bids and open them in public. There was one instance where the commission did not award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder and no explanation was provided.”