$2M in UMass bonuses in question; Medical school documentation audited.

AuthorSchweiger, Sara

Byline: Sara Schweiger

WORCESTER -- A state auditor's report has raised questions about more than $2 million in bonuses paid to administrators at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. At issue is a lack of documentation to support the added pay.

"The audit found UMMS paid bonuses in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to its chancellor totaling $367,500 but could not provide any written documentation, including an employment contract that established official criteria for such payments,'' the auditor's office wrote in a news release Thursday announcing its findings.

Top administrators at the medical school receive bonuses as part of its Incentive Compensation Plan through which they develop annual goals. These goals are to be reviewed and approved by the chancellor at the beginning of each fiscal year. The goals and the percentage of each met are tracked on a scorecard, and the results are used to calculate bonuses.

"The medical school adopted an ICP to ensure that administrative leaders responsible for the successful management of a large, complex and broad reaching institution such as the medical school are competitively compensated for their work in helping the institution achieve its goals,'' UMMS spokeswoman Jennifer Berryman wrote in an email.

The audit, conducted throughout the University of Massachusetts system, looked at 29 bonus payments at UMass Medical School totaling $1,693,480 in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and found that required paperwork was "missing or insufficient'' for $1,679,653 of that.

Additionally, bonus payments to Chancellor Michael F. Collins in 2010 and 2011 totaling $367,500 were found to lack written documentation, including an employment contract that set forth criteria for his earning bonuses or how they would be calculated.

Documentation was identified as deficient in three areas.

UMass Medical School officials were unable to provide scorecards for roughly 30 percent of ICP payments that were examined.

In addition, there was a lack of evidence, in cases where scorecards did exist, that a supervisor had reviewed those scorecards, or that such a review was conducted at both the beginning and end of the fiscal year.

Finally, the audit showed a lack of agreement...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT