Roland Burris as a Manager

I have already explained how Roland Burris didn’t know the difference between a civil and a criminal case.

That memory from a Champaign County debate in 1982 when I was running against Burris for State Comptroller made me chuckle when I heard a national talking head praise the former Attorney General’s legal prowess.

But, what about his managerial talents, not that much of that is needed by a United States Senator.

I looked at the Illinois Auditor General’s Audit of the last year and a half of Burris’ service as Illinois Attorney General.

Having served on the Illinois Audit Commission for a couple of terms in the 1970’s I can tell a good audit from a bad one.

Roland Burris’ last audit (for Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 – Burris left office midway through FY94) had these negative findings:

  • Burris didn’t pay $313,600 in phone bills over the two-year period. “We again recommend the Agency comply with the State Finance Act and not incur expenses in excess of amounts appropriated.”
  • Burris had $14.5 million in receivables, $12 million of which were considered uncollectible.
  • Burris got only a “qualified audit opinion” (emphasis in the original) because the agency’s 1994 and 1993 financial statements do not present the general fixed asset group of accounts.”
  • Burris had not distributed $21,000 from a 1988 Consumer Trust Account to fifty consumers who should have received the money violating the office’s “fiduciary responsibility to distribute these moneys.”
  • Burris “did not sufficiently plan and manage three computer database projects. Since 1991, the Agency has spent $716,070 for professional services on these and other projects with the three consultants. We did not see evidence that all required work products had been delivered. As of December 1994 (the month before Burris left office), none of the three projects had been completed; two of the computer systems developed were not usable; and only a portion of the third system was installed.”

Compare these findings with those for Burris’ successor Jim Ryan. There are a lot fewer negative audit findings for Ryan than for Burris.

= = = = =
Credit for inspiration for this story goes to CPA Charles Nelson. He worked for Ryan and was assigned to the correction of the problems relating to the accounting, finance, and management related findingsfindings.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *