There have been speculations surrounding where South Carolina State University got the money to give President Thomas Elzey a $50,000 bonus, WLTX reported.

School officials have said the president's bonus money is from their SC State University Advancement Foundation, however, a recent report found that the university has been funneling state funds into two foundations it is affiliated with, Campus Reform reported.

Elzey's bonus was a contractual obligation since he received a satisfactory evaluation from the school's Board of Trustees. Elzey, who was appointed as president in April 2013, is "entitled to annual contribution to a qualified annuity or other deferred compensation plan ... contingent upon a satisfactory performance evaluation as determined by the board," according to his contract. The money is to be paid no later than June 30.

Trustee Tony Grant told The Times and Democrat that when the board approved Elzey's performance they approved paying him $50,000.

"He did get satisfactory, so it was supposed to happen," Grant said. "But I don't know if it's been paid. I don't know where it's coming from because we don't have no money."

Grant was the only board member to cast the dissenting vote to Elzey's evaluation.

The state's Inspector General Patrick Maley launched an investigation into South Carolina State University's financial matters. He found that from 2010-2013, the institution's five major vendors provided rebates of more than $11 million, were sent to two foundations: The S.C. State University Advancement Foundation -- the entity school officials said Elzey's bonus came from -- and the S.C. State University Foundation.

"Additionally, almost $2.3 million of this refund was placed in the SCSU foundations and used for travel, flowers, awards, entertainment, country club memberships, and other expenses," Campus reform reported, citing the investigation.

The only oversight of the South Carolina State University Foundation is a voluntary Board of Directors that operates with no third party supervision.

Maley's report emphasized that more transparency and simplicity is needed when it comes to the university's funding.

"The practice of vendor rebates to foundations was not only inappropriate, it was poorly controlled," the report stated.

Sonja Bennett, a spokesperson for the university, told Campus Reform that the institution agreed with the inspector general's report.

"We concur with the IG that such practices at statewide institutions of higher learning may create a perception that total transparency is lacking. Moving forward the university will apply best practices to enhance transparency and accountability," Bennett said.