Issue of the Week: FCC Report and Sorenson
Wednesday December 10, 2008
A Congressional staff report, "DECEPTION AND DISTRUST:THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION UNDER CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN" that criticizes Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Kevin J. Martin states that the FCC should "immediately initiate a full investigation and audit of Sorenson." Why is this? According to bloggers Ed Bosson and Mishka Zena, TRS providers, particularly Sorenson, have been overpaid relative to costs. In addition, as Amy Cohen Effron points out in a comment on Bosson's blog, Sorenson refused to cooperate with an audit.
In addition to what what Ed and Elizabeth have quoted from the report, I would like to add a quote of my own from the report:
In addition to the issue of overcompensation, there are questions as to whether all of the minutes that TRS providers submit for compensation have actually been incurred by people with hearing or speech disabilities, and whether provider costs are accurate.Does this mean that congress is starting to catch on to the problem of relay service fraud? That topic has been discussed extensively in the deaf community already.
There is nothing wrong with a company making a profit. There IS something wrong with a company that receives federal funding, refusing to cooperate with an audit.
Comments
Official statement from Sorenson Consumer Policy Board- Read below and you will see that Sorenson did not refuse audit.
———————————————-
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
I would like to respond to this commenter above, who identified as Sorenson Consumer Policy Board:
It is not the first time you posted this comment on this blog, you have posted exactly same comment to all kinds of blogs addressing to this issue. That is ’spamming’ and it is not appropriate.
According to your report, the auditors called and wanting to audit on May 27, 2008 and it appears to me that Sorenson was willing to accommodate with the auditors, and scheduled the visit in two weeks, instead of accommodating with these auditors immediately. Do you think these auditors wanted immediately without giving you two weeks in advance? That is highly possible.
Why two weeks? What is wrong of letting these auditors to come into your office and review the data available? Why scheduling for two weeks? That is little bit too suspicious.
I know that many companies do like to prepare for the visit, by preparing their offices, gathering data and documents, and presenting them before the auditors.
This letter was sent in June 24, 2008, after the initial call from OIG on May 27, 2008 wanting to audit.
It appears that both parties agreed on June 16th, that is two weeks from the first call. There were several phone calls confirming for the visit. Somehow it was cancelled by OIG.
Is there a reason why OIG cancelled the visit, because do they really want to see all kinds of data available that are unredacted?
According to the congressional report, it says:
“On April 10, 2008, KPMG reported to the FCC that Sorenson had denied the KPMG auditors access to the staff and systems necessary to conduct the audit, and refused to permit them to review the company’s unredacted financial statements for 2004, 2005, and 2006. KPMG was therefore unable to conduct the audit.”
That makes me wonder…
It’s about time watchdogs get a little bit vindicated. And I heard more about them, and it sounds like purple.
Wondered why Mishka Zena repeats repeats repeats bloging old, old news about the same that Amy Efron already explained. Amy gave a clear explanation.
Maybe Mishka Zena too neurotic, obsessive sitting at computer daily for 24 hours.
Why does Sherlock Steve make all of this including Berke’s works sound like Sorenson is anti-Congress. He titled “SORENSON VS. CONGRESS” He’s so freaking misunderstood. People like him are making me feel really embarrassed to be deaf. Such company you keep nowadays.
I don’t get it. Where can I read this whole text/report?
~Love your family~
Dear whom it may concern,
I notified by email to vrscomments@sorenson.com; FCC.gov; NOAA.gov; FEMA.gov; NAD.org; and ADA.gov about my suggestion of adding new feature installments for deaf residents or deaf business owners enabling them to receive updates for weather warning alerts by adding upgrades in deaf resident’s and deaf businesses’videophone plugs wired with bed vibrator that turns on automatically, as they cannot hear the civil defense siren (Thunderbolt) blasts.
And since, civil defense department announces safety accessibility for the public in relation to F.E.M.A. and N.O.A.A.in their quest to meet their requirements for public safety by law.
The issue is because, the siren horn has been installed on telephone poles in some sections in areas designated for the public mainstream (hearing people) to hear their warning siren within 24 hours and that deaf people who are residents living alone or with a deaf family that cannot hear the siren warning blast for alerts on incoming stormy weather or terrorist attacks.
Also, I would like for us to think about what deaf people need in order to properly receive weather reports and to be able to watch for alerts [color code] which puts the disabled deaf people at a distinct disadvantage effectively taking away our equal rights by not being able to hear what they have reported.
I want to ask for advocate for this situation that affects millions of deaf people’s safety, as their lives in life are as equal the mainstream hearing public (majority) who has their safety issues prioritized too.
I have already notified of this situation two years ago and has not been able to gain access to the people that can help us and would like to request you for make this adjustment effective as of now.
I would like you to be aware of the fact that this is my second time in producing this statement and I would like to ask deaf people to sign a petition that supports getting additional new features installed in all videophones with bed vibrators which give warning for sudden last minute catastrophes, to watch for alert bulletins and to protect the public with safety measures and spare the public by sending messages on where survival kits including food and water with survival manual books too.
Teaching Deaf people to become more aware of weather safety and survival safety by making available kits is very important and crucial to saving innocent hearing impaired people. We would also like to be ready to show on Videophone how deaf residents and deaf business owners can learn by the effectively collective effort in helping deaf people to make them feel safe and we would like to express gratitude for the show of support of disabled deaf people who deserve the added safety regulations which save their lives too.
Sincerely yours,
Ronnie Decker
I want new feature on videophone plugs wired with bed vibrator for emergency weather warning or terrorist warning will inform automatically from Civil Defense Department just like what they announcing to all hearing people and what about deaf people? You see this link that government provided for hearing people and what about deaf people? Please see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_defense_siren
This is unfair that we do not have any warning weather portable device yet… I want to hear it what’s up with them.
I need their support of deaf people to have them like what hearing people have and we want be equal rights like hearing too.
Thanks
Robert Mansfield