|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER THE CALCULATION AND SUBMISSION OF CAPITAL
ASSET INFORMATION FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING PURPOSES
The Department’s primary capital asset and property control
accounting system, the Common Inventory System (CIS) was not adequate for the
proper calculation and submission of capital asset information for financial
reporting purposes. As a result, the
Department had to utilize numerous supplemental spreadsheets and schedules to
calculate capital asset balances and related depreciation in accordance with
General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
We noted the following problems with the Department’s
Statewide Accounting Management System to GAAP Reconciliation – Capital
Assets (SCO 537) and the Capital Asset Summary (SCO 538) submitted to the
State Comptroller:
·
The Department had not agreed the June 30, 2002
ending recalculations with the Common Inventory System (CIS) as of June 30,
2006 although this had been noted in prior audits.
·
Due to the incompleteness of CIS records, the
Department could not obtain ending balances for each capitalization category
from property control records.
Without these amounts, it cannot be determined if ending balances are
reasonably stated and extensive reconciliation testing procedures had to be
performed to verify ending balances.
·
Accumulated depreciation was calculated manually
requiring extensive reconciliation and testing procedures to be performed to
verify ending balances.
·
The Department was unable to provide adequate
documentation of actual additions, deletions, and transfers. Also, due to the consolidation process,
several changes to the category type were made and manual calculations were
necessary to account for these amounts.
·
The Department still has not included Office of Water
Resources sites, totaling approximately $41 million and Department of
Transportation managed projects, totaling approximately $26 million, on its
property control records. Manual
adjustments must be made for these items.
·
The Department evaluated the categorization of
capital assets at several sites which required a change in category type for
a significant number of assets. These
changes had to be manually reconciled with the previous year information.
·
The Department is unable to properly apply the
categorization threshold to determine which parcels of land should be
capitalized because the Department may have multiple items with the property
control system that constitutes one contiguous parcel of land. This resulted in approximately a $15.6
million increase for items previously not capitalized.
·
The Department was unable to properly calculate
capital asset accounts payable. The
Department overstated payables related to capital equipment by approximately
$1.7 million.
·
Due to the complexity of the above issues, revised
amounts related to capital assets and accumulated depreciation were not
available until November 8, 2006.
(Finding 1, pages 14-17) This finding was first reported in 2004.
We recommended the Department implement procedures
to ensure capital assets are reported in an accurate and complete
manner. Further, the Department
should reconcile the Common Inventory System to capital asset reporting
amounts or seek to replace the CIS system to ensure the property control
system can be utilized for capital asset reporting.
Department officials partially agreed with our recommendation
and stated the Department agrees the CIS system is antiquated and necessitates
a large amount of manual intervention and should be replaced. However, the Department does not believe
the audit report fairly and objectively states the conditions present in the
Department as of June 30, 2006 especially since there were no adjustments
made to the capital asset financial statements presented to be audited and
the auditors expressed an unqualified opinion on the financial statements
presented in prior years. Department
officials further stated additional procedures were implemented in FY 2006 to
ensure that the Department’s capital assets would be reported in an accurate
and complete manner. Specifically,
the Office of the Comptroller, on their own initiative, volunteered to assist
the Department and with their assistance the Department did agree ending
recalculations of asset category balances and related accumulated
depreciation as of June 20, 2005, with CIS and including the first three
quarters of FY2006 at March 31, 2006.
This reconciliation was offered to the auditors to test in June 2006
and they opted not to do so. Further,
this reconciliation was updated for the fourth quarter of FY2006 and
submitted to the Comptroller on August 14, 2006 when it was also available to
the auditors. (For the previous Department response, see Digest Footnote #1.)
In an auditor’s comment, we noted the finding primarily
addresses the inadequacies in the CIS system and the fact it cannot be relied
upon to properly calculate capital asset information for GAAP reporting
purposes. The finding does not focus
on audit adjustments. In addition,
the Office of the Comptroller originally became involved with this process in
late fiscal year 2005 only after the Department’s inability to prepare
capital asset schedules in a timely manner.
Also, the auditors are opining on a capital asset balance at a point
in time and it would be inefficient and unproductive to audit the March 31,
2006 balances and again perform procedures at June 30, 2006. Lastly, August 14 was when information was
provided to the Comptroller, not to the auditors. After Comptroller revisions and adjustments, the revised
capital asset information was made available to the auditors on November 8,
2006.
INADEQUATE PREPARATION OF ACCOUNTING REPORTS AND DIFFICULTY IN USING
PROGRAMMATIC ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
The Department's preparation and submission of year end
accounting reports (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GAAP Package
Forms) to the Office of the State Comptroller were not performed in an
accurate manner.
We noted:
·
Three adjustments totaling over $1.8 million were
required to agree GAAP reporting packages to actual revenues and
expenditures. These adjustments were
for 2 of 23 funds tested of the Department’s 56 funds.
·
The Department’s preparation and submission of year
end accounting reports to the Office of the State Comptroller related to the
Capital Asset Account were not performed accurately, causing significant
financial reporting delays
·
The Department had inadequate procedures to identify
liabilities for capital projects and land acquisition costs payable to local
governments from reappropriated accounts.
Although the process appears to be materially accurate for 2006, June
30, 2005 expenditure liabilities were significantly overstated resulting in
three funds reporting negative expenditures during 2006 totaling $18 million.
·
The Department failed to report nearly $1 million of
oil royalty revenue earned between August, 2003 and June, 2006 resulting in
understated revenue and receivables in the Wildlife and Fish Fund.
·
The Department did not maintain support from its
Programmatic Accounting System (PAS) in an orderly manner, making it
difficult to use for purposes of GAAP reporting. (Finding 2, pages 18-20)
This finding was first reported in 2000.
We recommended the Department maintain established procedures
to ensure year end accounting reports are prepared in an accurate and
complete manner. We further
recommended the Department review and revise, as necessary, its current
system of gathering programmatic expenditure information to improve the
accuracy of its financial reporting and to more clearly document the support
for totals used for GAAP reporting.
Department officials partially agreed with our recommendation
and noted that they agreed the Programmatic Accounting System is cumbersome
to use, however, steps were taken in FY2006 to ensure that the information
would be prepared in an accurate and complete manner as possible. In addition, Department officials stated
they felt bullet #1 was misleading as it shows the percentage of the packages
they chose to review as opposed to the actual number of packages
completed. Lastly, Department
officials wanted to note the auditors passed on adjusting the capital asset
financial statements while making the adjustment on GAAP reports. (For previous Department Response, see
Digest Footnote #2.)
In an auditor’s comment we noted bullet #1 refers to two
funds with material adjustments but that problems with utilizing the PAS
extended across all funds. In addition,
materiality levels at a fund level are much lower than at the capital asset
account level and therefore, audit adjustments made at the fund level were
not required to be posted at the capital asset level due to materiality.
EXCESSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS FOR DEER AND
TURKEY PERMITS
The Department issued excessive
administrative approvals for deer and turkey hunting permits, approved
incomplete applications for administrative approvals, and exceeded Department
established hunting quotas. The
Department also failed to make the administrative approval process open to
the public, resulting in preferential treatment for certain hunters.
During the engagement period, the Department issued 1,250
deer and turkey hunting permits via an administrative approval process. This process allows for a hunter to obtain
a deer or turkey hunting permit without going through the lottery system, or
to obtain a permit if the hunter was unsuccessful in obtaining a permit
though the lottery process. During our
testing of 240 permits issued via administrative approval, we noted the
following:
·
Department forms were incomplete for 220 of 240
(91.7%) administrative approvals issued.
·
Permit applications were incomplete for 103 of 240
(42.9%) permits granted via administrative approval.
·
Permit fees were not charged for 53 of 240 (22.1%)
permits granted via administrative approval.
·
One individual was issued 20 permits through
administrative approval and there was no documentation of payment for these
permits, for which fees totaled $600.
·
Five representatives of an ammunition company were
granted three permits each through administrative approval for permit year
2005 and there was not documentation of the payment for these permits, for
which fees totaled $1,045.
·
The Department issued 27 youth hunt permits for
Gallatin County although Gallatin County was not approved for youth
hunting.
·
Many administrative approval permits were issued to
allow a hunter who had been issued a permit via the lottery process an additional
permit(s) for an earlier hunting season or an either sex deer permit, which
is the preferred permit for many hunters.
·
Several administrative approvals were issued prior to
the initial lottery, resulting in fewer permits available for other hunters. In addition, other administrative
approvals occurred after the lottery process resulting in permits issued in
excess of target quotas.
·
Administrative approvals were issued for Illinois
Conservation Foundation donors, professional athletes, judges and
politicians. (Finding 3, pages,
21-23)
We recommended the Department establish policies and
procedures for administrative approvals for hunting permits, to ensure all
approvals are accurate, complete, documented as to purpose and in compliance
with the Wildlife Code.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and noted
that the documentation for permits issued administratively needs significant
improvement. The Department’s Office
of Administration will work with the Director’s Office and General Counsel to
develop procedures that fully comply with the Illinois Compiled Statutes.
WEAKNESSES WITH CONTRACT FOR POINT OF SALE SYSTEM
The Department did not have a timely or adequate contract for
the development and implementation of the Point of Sale System. In April 2004, the Department issued a
request for proposal (RFP) to obtain solutions for modernizing its fishing
and hunting license/permit sales and watercraft/snowmobile registrations
through the use of an automated Point of Sale (POS) Licensing System
operating over the internet. The RFP
requested pricing proposals in two manners:
“per privilege cost” and “turnkey operation cost.” The Department received responses to the
RFP in August 2004 and the selected vendor began work on the system
development in October 2004. The
following items were noted during this process:
·
Negotiating a “per privilege cost” contract violated
the State Officers and Employees Money Disposition Act.
·
Requesting pricing proposals in two manners, “per
privilege cost” and “turnkey operation cost” may have prevented certain
vendors from bidding on the contract.
·
The original contract did not have all Department
approvals that would normally be obtained for any other contract, in
violation of established Department internal control procedures.
·
The revised “contract” was not sufficiently reduced
to writing and filed with the Comptroller before services began.
·
The additional $200,000 per year work for the deer
harvest data services was not competitively bid in compliance with the
Illinois Procurement Code.
·
The amendment filed with the Comptroller omitted the
key terms which was not filed with the contract. (Finding 4, pages 24-26)
We recommended the Department implement procedures to ensure
all contracts are complete and meet all statutory requirements and that the
Department seek competitive bids for all contracts as required by the
Procurement Code.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department has already solicited assistance from the State
Purchasing Officer assigned to the Department and will include his
recommendations for improving controls and monitoring of all contracts in our
corrective action plan.
FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE INTERNAL FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
CONTROLS
The
Department failed to adequately evaluate internal fiscal and administrative
controls in accordance with the Fiscal Control and Internal Auditing
Act. During fiscal years 2005 and
2006, the Department certified an evaluation was conducted over internal
fiscal and administrative controls, listing several reportable internal
control weaknesses and corrective action plans addressing these
weaknesses. However, the Department
only listed items as reportable weaknesses that were noted as findings within
the Department’s Compliance Examination for the two years ended June 30,
2004. The Department failed to make
an independent comprehensive evaluation of internal fiscal and administrative
controls. (Finding 8, pages 32-33)
We
recommended the Department establish procedures for an evaluation of internal
fiscal and administrative controls to determine whether the systems comply
with the requirements of the Act.
Department
officials agreed with our recommendation and stated the Department will initiate
implementation of evaluation internal fiscal and administrative controls at
the division level – as well as formalizing the evaluation process at the
agency level.
FAILURE TO DEPOSIT MONIES WITH THE STATE TREASURER IN A TIMELY MANNER
The Department failed to deposit monies with the State
Treasurer in a timely manner in compliance with the State Officers and
Employees Monies Disposition Act.
During our testing of cash receipts throughout various areas of our engagement,
we noted the following:
·
22 of 25 (88%) refunds tested, totaling $591,019,
were deposited between 1 and 208 days late.
·
5 of 5 (100%) violations tested, totaling $5,051,
were deposited between 6 and 18 days late.
·
4 of 25 (16%) general receipts tested, totaling
$180,494, were deposited between 3 and 6 days late.
·
1 royalty check totaling $58,108 was deposited 68
days late. (Finding 11, pages 39-40)
We recommended the Department deposit all monies with the
State Treasurer in a timely manner.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department’s Office of Fiscal Management will begin to incorporate
a periodic reminder to staff handling cash refunds, receipts and/or revenues
of their responsibility to comply with the Act.
STATE POLICE TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLANNING SYSTEM (TIPS) NOT UPDATED
IN A TIMELY MANNER
The Department did not enter written warnings issued by
Conservation Police Officers (CPO) dating from July 1999 to present into the
TIPS in a timely manner. The TIPS is
a computerized system administered by the State police that provide law
enforcement officials information on citations and written warnings. It is the Department’s responsibility to
enter information regarding citations and written warnings issued by CPO’s
into the TIPS. Department personnel
stated CPO’s issue approximately 10,000 written warnings per year. (Finding 15, page 46) This
finding was first reported in 2002.
We recommended the Department enter all past and future
written warnings issued by CPO’s into TIPS in a timely manner.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department’s Office of Law Enforcement will work with Department’s
Budget Division to assess the resources needed to address record keeping for
written warning and reprioritize existing resources to the maximum extent
possible before requesting additional assistance. (For the previous
Department response, see Digest Footnote #3.)
TIME SHEETS NOT MAINTAINED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES ETHICS ACT
The Department is not maintaining time sheets for its
employees in compliance with the State Officials and Employees Ethics
Act. Department employees (other than
senior management) did not maintain time sheets in compliance with the
Act. Employees’ time is tracked using
a “negative” timekeeping system whereby the employee is assumed to be working
unless noted otherwise. No time
sheets documenting the time spent each day on official State business to the
nearest quarter hour are maintained.
(Finding 16, page 47)
We recommended the Department amend its policies to require
all employees maintain time sheets in compliance with the Act.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated DNR is currently working with a consultant and another state agency to
develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to implement an automated timekeeping
system.
TIMEKEEPING SYSTEM IS NOT AUTOMATED
The Department-wide timekeeping system is not automated,
resulting in inefficiencies and errors in accurately calculating employee
accumulated leave. The Department
employs over 1,600 employees and each division within the Department
maintains a manual timekeeping system.
We noted the following weaknesses:
·
The Department calculated accrued leave incorrectly
for 7 of 60 (11.7%) employees selected for testing. One of these errors resulted in accrued sick time being
overstated at the end of the month by 5.5 hours for an individual. Another error caused overtime to be
understated by 35.25 hours for one individual.
·
The Department’s timekeeping process is not universal
throughout the Department. The
Division of Mines and Minerals uses the CMS Timekeeping System and the
Illinois Waste Management Resource Center and the Illinois State Water Survey
have their own timekeeping systems; however, most of the divisions use the
DNR Manual Timekeeping System which is paper intensive allowing for human
errors. (Finding 18, pages
50-51) This finding was first
reported in 2000.
We recommended the Department implement controls
to ensure its timekeeping is accurate and efficient to maintain and consider
implementing an automated timekeeping system to strengthen internal controls
and eliminate the multiple timekeeping systems currently used by the
Department.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department is currently working with a consultant and another
State agency to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) to implement an
automated timekeeping system. (For
previous Department Response, see Digest Footnote #4.)
INADEQUATE PROCEDURES REGARDING STATE VEHICLES
The Department did not have adequate controls over its State
vehicles. We noted the following:
·
A regular review of vehicle assignments to determine
whether the assignments are in the best interest of the State did not occur;
·
1 out of 10 employees did not effectively utilize the
Department’s vehicle fleet. This
traveler was approved to use her personal vehicle for 5,994 miles, resulting
in reimbursement totaling $2,428;
·
6 out of 85 (7.1%) accidents involving State vehicles
were not reported in a timely manner.
The reports were submitted between 1 to 34 days late;
·
Odometer readings were not maintained or monitored
for all vehicles in a consistent manner; and
·
No documentation could be provided to ensure the
Department’s approximate 1,100 vehicles were maintained properly. (Finding 20, pages 54-57) This finding was first reported in
2002.
We recommended the Department strengthen its controls
regarding State vehicles for the items noted.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department’s Offices of Administration and Fiscal Management
worked diligently with Information Technology to implement an Agency-wide
database that tracks mileage and maintenance expenditures, however, this was
not fully implemented at June 30, 2006.
Further, the Office of Fiscal Management has expanded its tasks with
respect to assigned vehicle fringe benefit reporting to coordinate the annual
review, justification and sign-off by the Director on these vehicles. (For previous Department Response, see
Digest Footnote #5.)
INADEQUATE
CONTROLS OVER TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPENDITURES AND RECORDS
The
Department did not maintain adequate controls over processes related to
telecommunications equipment and expenditure records. We noted the following:
·
The Department failed to maintain detail records of
phone calls for fiscal year 2005 and the first half of fiscal year 2006.
·
The Department did not require supervisors to
adequately review and verify a monthly itemized listing of local and long
distance calls. Two of 25 calls
selected could not be identified and explained by the individuals placing the
calls or by their corresponding Telecommunications Liaisons.
·
Three of 25 calls tested were deemed to be for
personal reasons. Two of these calls
exceeded the fifteen minute allowable limit outlined in the Departments’
manual; however these two employees were not required to reimburse the $1.00
per minute administrative charges.
Another caller had multiple personal long distance calls and this
employee was required to repay all CMS billed charges.
·
No records are maintained of operator assisted calls
noting the employee placing the call or justification of the call. Seven of 12 calls tested could not be
justified by employees due to a lack of record-keeping.
·
Telecommunication records are not updated for changes
in assignments of equipment, such as cell phones, calling cards, pagers and
phone lines. We noted 24 out of 75
instances where cell phones, pagers or calling cards were either lost,
unnecessary or not currently used by the persons listed by the
Telecommunications Coordinator. We
also noted 2 out of 26 instances where the employee assigned to the line had
changed, but the telecommunications records were not updated. (Finding 24, pages 63-65) This finding was first reported in
2002.
We recommended the Department include the updated
telecommunications expenditure processing procedures in the Department’s
Policies and Procedures Manual to ensure enforcement of the restructured
guidelines throughout the Department.
Also, the Department should develop guidelines for recording and
approving all calls to Directory Assistance and encourage the use of
alternative methods for obtaining phone number information to minimize the
use of this billable service. We
further recommended the Department more closely review monthly phone billings
within each division and ensure all employees are charged the CMS billable
charges along with the administrative and billing costs outlined in the
Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual and as provided in the State
telephone usage policy.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department has already implemented corrective action. (For previous Department Response, see
Digest Footnote #6.)
TELEPHONE
CALLING CARDS AND PAGERS NOT CANCELLED ON A TIMELY BASIS
The Department did not cancel telephone calling cards and
pagers in a timely manner. We
reviewed 25 individuals assigned telephone calling cards and 25 individuals
assigned pagers during the engagement period. When inquiring as to the necessity of these cards, we noted
that 6 telephone calling cards assigned to individuals were not cancelled
when the employees’ use of the calling cards was no longer necessary. In addition, we noted 7 pagers not
cancelled timely. The Department is
charged $11.44 per month for each pager regardless if it is used or not
used. (Finding 25, page 66) This finding was first reported in 2002.
We recommended the Department ensure uniform enforcement of
calling card and pager cancellation policies throughout all divisions. Calling card and pager assignments to
employees should be reevaluated on regular basis in order to maintain
up-to-date records and prevent any potential abuse of calling cards and
pagers.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department’s Office of Fiscal Management took control of this
function in April 2006 and has implemented corrective action effective July
2006. (For previous Department
Response, see Digest Footnote #7.)
ART PRINT AND COLLECTOR’S STAMP PROGRAMS OPERATING AT A LOSS
The Department’s art print and collector’s stamp programs
operated at a financial loss. The
Department issues the following stamps:
habitat stamp, salmon/trout stamp, and migratory waterfowl stamp. These stamps are required to be affixed to
an individual’s license or permit for certain hunting and fishing
purposes. The Department contracts
with artists annually to create paintings suitable for reproduction as an
applicable print for each of the three types of stamps. The Department distributes these stamps,
charging applicable fees, for hunting and fishing purposes. In addition, the Department also sells
collector’s editions of the habitat stamp and art print.
During fiscal year 2005, the Department paid $54,499 for
costs associated with artwork, the printing costs of stamps and prints, and
promotional materials. Included in
this amount is $16,735 related to collector’s edition habitat stamps and
prints. During fiscal years 2005 and
2006, the Department generated a total of $9,015 in revenue related to the
sales of these collector’s stamps and prints. The Department ordered a total of 1,820 prints, but only sold
144 prints. The 2005 art print and
collector’s stamp program operated at a loss of $7,720. (Finding 26, pages 67-68)
We recommended the Department evaluate the art print and
collector’s stamp programs to determine the economic feasibility of
continuing to offer these items and consider reducing the amount of prints
ordered based upon historical sales analysis. We further recommended the Department investigate the
possibility of issuing electronic stamps via the Point of Sale system in order
to reduce costs associated with collector’s stamps currently issued by the
Department.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department’s Office of Public Service has already begun a process
to evaluate the efficacy of this program with the assistance of the Director
and Executive Staff.
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings are reportedly are being given
attention by the Department. We will
review progress towards the implementation of our recommendations in our next
compliance engagement.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
We conducted a financial audit of the
Department’s Capital Asset Account for the year ended June 30, 2006 and a
compliance examination of the Department for the two years ended June 30,
2006 as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. Our
special assistant auditors stated that the Department’s capital asset account
as of June 30, 2006 is presented fairly in all in all material respects.
____________________________________
WILLIAM
G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:JSC:pp
AUDITORS ASSIGNED
Our special assistant auditors for this engagement were
Sikich, LLP.
DIGEST FOOTNOTES
#1 –
INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER THE CALCULATION AND SUBMISSION OF CAPITAL ASSET
INFORMATION FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING PURPOSES – Previous Department Response
2004: We
agree. The Department will continue
to pursue solutions to the 30-odd years of previous management staff’s
questionable practices for capital asset recording, the Capital Development
Board’s misclassification of capital assets in its transfer reports and the
Common Inventory System’s inability to provide reports on capital assets that
do not require further substantial amounts of analysis by Department
staff.
Auditor Comment:
The Department did not devote sufficient time and resources to
properly address GASB 34 when it first became effective in fiscal year
2002. This exacerbated the capital
asset issues on a go forward basis.
The Department is ultimately responsible for reviewing the information
obtained from other State agencies and ensuring the information is properly
classified and reported.
#2 – INADEQUATE PREPARATION OF GAAP PACKAGES
AND DIFFICULTY IN USING PROGRAMMATIC ACCOUNTING SYSTEM – Previous Department
Response
2004: We disagree. In response to the prior period audit finding, the Department
implemented those actions that were submitted by prior management and were
accepted as resolving the finding.
Most significant being the Department’s acquisition of additional
resources to deliver 56, not just the 13 packages selected for examination,
GAAP fund packages by the due date.
Furthermore, the differences characterized as “inaccuracies or
problems” are based on data that did not exist and was not available when the
packages were due and was collected two or more months after the due
dates. Additionally, since GAAP
packages are due, in many instances prior to the availability of final
financial data, management must make informed estimates of the final figures. Until the time issue is addressed, GAAP
packages will always require adjusting entries, many of which may be
substantial.
Auditor Comment: This is a repeat finding. In the prior audit, we noted similar
problems with a failure to timely and accurately prepare the Departments’
GAAP packages and identify liabilities for capital projects and land
acquisition cost payable to local governments from reappropriated
accounts. Nevertheless, we found
similar problems in the current audit.
This finding only addressed significant adjustments; there were
numerous other inaccuracies. Making
informed estimates takes planning, effort and resources. The Department also had two years to deal
with its capital asset issues and liabilities issue and neither was resolved
in this audit. In addition the proper
use of the Programmatic Accounting System noted in finding 04-9 would help
accuracy of the Department’s GAAP forms submitted to the Office of the State
Comptroller.
#3 – STATE POLICE TRAFFIC INFORMATION
PLANNING SYSTEM (TIPS) NOT UPDATED IN A TIMELY MANNER – Previous Department
Response
2004: We agree.
However, we feel compelled to add, the Department already identified
this problem as a number of highly specifically trained staff were
experiencing an extended period of health related problems. We have not made substantial progress in
addressing the back-log, we estimate it has been cut in half, and believe we
will be reasonably current in the near future. Additionally, we hasten to add that some delays may occur as
they are beyond our control because they are dependent on judicial actions at
the circuit clerk level.
#4 –
TIMEKEEPING SYSTEM IS NOT AUTOMATED – Previous Department Response
2004: We partially agree. The Department is not aware of any
authoritative State requirement to implement an automated timekeeping
system. The automated application
currently used by one Department Office is not linked to payroll, is
susceptible to keying and manipulative errors by those entering data and is
cost prohibitive to extend coverage to other offices of the Department. Nevertheless, we will seek to make
available to timekeepers currently owned and licensed software that can
minimize calculation errors
Auditor Comment: This is a repeat finding. In the prior audit, we noted the same
issues with the Department being unable to properly calculate accrued leave
and incurring a large number of manual errors. The Department agreed with our prior recommendation to
implement an automated system. We
again emphasize that due to the size and decentralization of the Department
and the continued errors noted, it would be prudent business practice to
implement an automated timekeeping system, even as simple as a spreadsheet or
database system.
#5 –
INADEQUATE PROCEDURES REGARDING STATE VEHICLES – Previous Department Response
2004: We agree.
The Department’s Offices of Administration and Fiscal Management will
co-lead an initiative to reenergize and further enhance the evaluations of
the Department’s vehicle fleet management which were initially completed in
2003 and implement as many of the recommendations as is determined viable
within existing resources.
#6 –
INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPENDITURES AND RECORDS –
Previous Department Response
2002: We agree.
The Offices of Administration and Fiscal management will collaborate
on an extensive and exhaustive review of the Department’s telecommunications
functions as a whole and will develop and implement policies and procedures
as well as modify pertinent existing procedures to achieve an adequate level
of management control to the extent possible within existing resources.
#7 –
TELEPHONE CALLING CARDS NOT CANCELLED ON A TIMELY BASIS – Previous Department
Response
2004: We concur. The Department will reevaluate its need for telephone calling
cards and will promptly cancel all those cards of former employees as well as
all calling cards.
|
