Thursday, 18 December 2008

  • Sorenson Denies Barring FCC Auditors Access To Its Records

    Commentary: This story took an unusual turn late last night when a commenter, Sorenson Consumer Policy Board,  left a response to the allegations raised by the Congressional Report in my blog.  Since I feel it’s fair that the public also hears the other side on these serious accusations, I am publishing this comment in a new post where it will get adequate attention.  However, my commentary on Sorenson’s previous unethical and illegal acts still stand.  MZ
     
    PS. Do read the first comment. A reader shared her POV of the situation. According to her, from reading the congressional report, Sorenson may have “prevented” the auditors when they showed up the first time unannounced. If so, that may explain the Congressional Report’s charges. MZ

    J E N N E R &  B L O C K
    Jenner &  Block LLP
    1099 New York Avenue, NW
    Suite 900
    Washington, DC 20001-4412
    Tel 202 639-6ooo
    http://www.jenner.com
    Michael B DeSanctis
    Tel 202 637-6323
    Fax 202 661-4828
    mdesanctis@jenner com
    Offices:

    Chicago
    New York
    Washington, DC

    June 24, 2008
    VIA ELECTRONIC AND REGULAR MAIL

    To: Mr. Curtis Hagan
    Assistant Inspector General - Audits
    Office of Inspector General
    Federal Communications Commission
    445 12th Street, SW, Room 2-C478
    Washington, DC 20554
    Re: TRS Audit

    Dear Mr. Hagan:

    The purpose of this letter is to record in writing the following facts: The Office of the Inspector General cancelled KPMG’s on-site visit to Sorenson’s corporate headquarters, which was set to begin June 16, 2008, even though Sorensen was ready, willing and able to accommodate that visit and make substantial data available to your auditors.

    As Bill Garay will confirm, I personally inquired at least a dozen times over the last 15 months into when OIG planned to conduct the on-site portion of the audit. On May 27, 2008, Mr. Carnahan told me that he and his staff were ready to visit Sorenson’s offices to conduct the onsite portion of the audit of Sorenson’s recordation and reporting of VRS minutes. I had a telephonic conversation with Mr. Carnahan on June 3, 2008 in which I confirmed that Sorenson would be available and would welcome the KPMG audit staff beginning Monday, June 16, 2008.

    We discussed what his team would need in terms of office space and equipment, and I assured him that we would provide him and KPMG with whatever they needed. We also discussed substantively that we would begin first thing Monday morning by having key employees walk his team through Sorenson’s processes and procedures for the recording and reporting of VRS minutes, and that his team would let us know how they wished to proceed from there. He asked Sorenson to reserve a full week, though he did not know whether KPMG would need all of that time.

    Following up on my call with Mr. Carnahan, I sent a confirming letter to you on June 5, 2008, in which I stated “We remain committed to cooperating with OIG in the interests of having the audit completed in a timely manner. To that end, I am writing to confirm that Sorenson has agreed to host Terry Carnahan and his KPMG staff, commencing June 16, 2008, for the onsite component of the portion of the audit involving Sorenson’s systems and procedures for the recording and reporting of VRS minutes.”

    In response, you informed me that you had decided to cancel the on-site visit. You asserted that you and Mr. Carnahan read my June 5 letter as not confirming our willingness to host the on-site audit. In fact, the letter states the exact opposite. Moreover, on June 12,1 told you that we still were ready, willing and able to host your audit commencing on June 16. Indeed, I called you that day from Salt Lake City, where I was involved in the preparations for KPMG’s visit. You made it clear at that time that KPMG would not visit on June 16, and that you were not interested in rescheduling for a later date.

    During our June 12 call, you complained that in my June 5 letter I identified confidential data and information that should not be shared with the public or with other offices or bureaus within the Commission. However, I provided that information in writing to you because you had suggested that I do so in our earlier phone conversation on May 29, 2008. That suggestion was consistent with my previous conversation with David Hunt and Carla Conover, who informed me in an in-person meeting on May 14, 2008, that it is and always has been OIG’s policy to keep confidential all non-public information produced by TRS providers during the course of an audit and that such information would not be disclosed to the public or shared with other bureaus within the Commission. See Letter from M. DeSanctis to W. Garay, May 22, 2008.

    Under these circumstances, the OIG bears complete and total responsibility for not undertaking the planned on-site minute audit. We did exactly as you had asked in identifying our confidential information and confirming that we would host the KPMG team beginning June 16. Moreover, over the past 15 months, we have now incurred substantial costs for an audit that you apparently no longer wish to hold. We remain willing, as always, to host the on-site minute audit and would be amendable to speaking with you about rescheduling.

    Sincerely,
    Michael B. DeSanctis
    Counsel for Sorenson Communications, Inc.
    cc: Kent Nilsson, Inspector General

     

    To read the comments: http://blog.deafread.com/mishkazena/2008/12/11/sorenson-denies-barring-fcc-auditors-access-to-its-records/

     
     

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.

About this Entry

Who recommended?