THE entire staff of the Internal Audit Unit of the University of Technology (UTech) was yesterday afternoon sent on leave, pending an investigation into the leaking of a scathing audit report that was published in the press over the weekend.
Members of the unit - three audit officers and two support staff members - were issued letters informing that they were being sent on leave on suspicion that the report leaked to the Sunday Herald emanated from the department, a source told the Observer.
Our source said the staff members, some of whom have served the university for the past 15 years, were handed their letters and asked to pack up their personal belongings, while being watched by security guards. The lock on the unit's office door was also changed.
The leaked audit report, which was last September commissioned by then pro-chancellor, Dr Blossom O'Meally Nelson, allegedly cited spending that exceeded $1 million, in one case, for expenditure relating to a senior staff member
Crazypickney said
10:49 01/31 2008
my lord!! yes sah reveal the things dem cause utech nuh wah fix up proper resources fi students
Thursday, January 31, 2008
THE entire staff of the Internal Audit Unit of the University of Technology (UTech) was yesterday afternoon sent on leave, pending an investigation into the leaking of a scathing audit report that was published in the press over the weekend.
Members of the unit - three audit officers and two support staff members - were issued letters informing that they were being sent on leave on suspicion that the report leaked to the Sunday Herald emanated from the department, a source told the Observer.
Our source said the staff members, some of whom have served the university for the past 15 years, were handed their letters and asked to pack up their personal belongings, while being watched by security guards. The lock on the unit's office door was also changed.
The leaked audit report, which was last September commissioned by then pro-chancellor, Dr Blossom O'Meally Nelson, allegedly cited spending that exceeded $1 million, in one case, for expenditure relating to a senior staff member