Audit report: Wagner gives CCAC high marks
The Community College of Allegheny County is a “responsible steward of the tuition dollars and public funding it receives,” according to an audit released on Wednesday by Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner.
In assessing CCAC's $140 million annual operation, Wagner focused her informal review on CCAC's fiscal policies and procedures. The analysis looked at areas such as tuition and student aid policies, fundraising, collection procedures, expenditures, operating reserves and bookstore operations.
One recommendation calls for CCAC to expand access to its popular health care academic programs, especially in the nursing school, where classes often fill up quickly because of the growth of the region's health care industry. Additionally, Wagner recommends that CCAC better target its advertising at populations most in need of affordable education options.
“Community colleges are one of Pennsylvania's most important assets, providing opportunity for many who otherwise would never have a chance to gain a college degree,” Wagner said, “Even with continual concerns over funding cuts, CCAC's leadership has run a tight ship and conducted its affairs with the interests of both students and taxpayers in mind.”
State Sen. Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, a CCAC board member and treasurer, said the audit reflects positively on the school.
“For many, many years, we have had low tuition rates compared to many other community colleges in the state. CCAC also has programs for displaced workers and volunteer fire training programs that have no tuition,” Costa said.
Rick Wills is a reporter for Trib Total Media.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.