FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE BILLINGS FROM IMPROPER
LINE ITEM APPROPRIATIONS
The Agency made payments for efficiency initiative billings
from improper line item appropriations.
Public Act 93-0025, in part,
outlines a program for efficiency initiatives to reorganize, restructure, and
reengineer the business processes of the State. The State Finance Act details that the amount designated as
savings from efficiency initiatives implemented by the Department of Central
Management Services (CMS) shall be paid into the Efficiency Initiatives
Revolving Fund. The Act further
requires State agencies to pay these amounts from line item appropriations
where cost savings are anticipated to occur.
The Agency did not receive guidance or documentation
with the FY04 billings from CMS detailing from which line item appropriations
savings were anticipated to occur.
While Agency staff reported, for the FY04 billings, they had reviewed
documentation from the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB) and
a letter from the Executive Office of the Governor, none of this
documentation provided guidance on where savings were anticipated to occur.
The Agency made payments in FY04 for billings not
from line item appropriations where the cost savings were anticipated to have
occurred but from line items that had available funds. The Agency methodology for the FY04
payments was spread across multiple funds and multiple line items. The Agency paid:
·
$200,180 toward procurement and information
technology billings from a lump sum appropriation to the division of
environmental safety.
·
$85,000 toward the information technology initiative
billing from a lump sum appropriation to the division of radiation safety.
·
$30,000 toward the procurement billing from a General
Revenue Fund lump sum appropriation for “Training and Education” in
federally-assisted programs.
·
$18,500 in procurement efficiency billings in FY04
from travel line item appropriations.
The Agency paid a total of $733,294 for the FY04 and FY05
efficiency initiative billings.
(Finding 1, pages 9-12)
We recommended that the Agency only make payments for
efficiency initiative billings from line item appropriations where savings
would be anticipated to occur.
Further, the Agency should seek an explanation from the Department of
Central Management Services as to how savings levels were calculated, or
otherwise arrived at, and how savings achieved or anticipated impact the
Agency’s budget.
The Agency accepted our recommendation and stated that they
will make future savings payments from lines from which savings are
anticipated to occur. In addition,
the Agency will request documentation from CMS for any savings payments that
are requested.
NEED TO COMPLETE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS ON A TIMELY BASIS
The Agency
did not conduct employee performance evaluations on a timely basis. During our testing, we noted 21 of 50
(42%) employee personnel files did not contain a current performance
evaluation or their performance evaluation was not performed timely. The Agency is required by the Illinois
Administrative Code to perform an employee evaluation not less than
annually. (Finding Code 2, pages
13-14) This finding has been repeated since 1997.
We
recommended the Agency comply with the Illinois Administrative Code and
Agency policies by completing and approving annual performance evaluations in
a timely manner. (For previous Agency
response see Digest Footnote 1.)
Agency
officials concurred stating that in January 2005, the Personnel Officer
instituted new procedures on notification of evaluations due.
QUESTIONABLE VACATION AND SICK LEAVE PAYOUT
The Department of Nuclear Safety
(Department) which merged with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency
(Agency) effective July 1, 2003 did not seek repayment from an employee who
received a single lump sum payment of $48,299 of accrued vacation and sick
leave upon retirement.
An employee received a single lump sum payment of accrued
vacation and sick leave as a result of the individual’s early
retirement. However, the individual
then returned to work with the Department two days after his early retirement
and did not repay the amount previously received as a lump sum payment.
According to the State Finance Act (30 ILCS 105/14a(c)), if
an “employee returns to employment in
any capacity with the same agency or department within 30 days of the
termination of his or her previous State employment, the employee must, as a
condition of his or her new State employment, repay the lump sum amount
within 30 days after his or her new State employment commences.”
According to Agency personnel, a formal written opinion from
the Attorney General was requested on April 5, 2004, however, the matter is
still pending with the Attorney General.
(Finding 3, pages 17-18)
We recommended the Agency pursue its
request with the Attorney General for a formal, written opinion to determine
whether it has any obligation to recoup State funds paid from appropriations.
The Agency accepted our recommendation
and indicated that on April 5, 2004, the Agency requested a formal, written
opinion of the Attorney General concerning this finding and the Agency
continues to monitor this request.
However, as of the date of the response, the matter is still pending
with the Attorney General.
RETIREMENT ANNUITY PAYMENTS
A former State Officer of the Department
of Nuclear Safety (Department), who was transferred to a new position on July
1, 2003 at the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (Agency) without the
advice and consent of the Senate, continues to receive retirement annuity
payments prohibited by the Pension Code.
The individual retired from the Department as Manager of the
Office of Nuclear Facility Safety on February 14, 2003 and began receiving
retirement annuity payments from the State Employees Retirement System (SERS)
on April 23, 2003. On February 16,
2003 he was appointed Director of the Department and was confirmed in that
position with the advice and consent of the Senate on February 28, 2003. At the time of his appointment as a State
Officer, the individual elected not to participate in the SERS in his new
position. However, he continued to
draw a pension from SERS related to his prior position.
Subsequently, by operation of the Governor’s Executive Order
#12, effective July 1, 2003, the Department was abolished and its functions
moved to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA). Section II (B) of Executive Order #12 provided that “the
Director of Nuclear Safety shall be transferred to the Illinois Emergency
Management Agency and be made the Assistant Director of the Illinois
Emergency Management Agency.” The
individual’s transfer to his current position as Assistant Director of IEMA
was not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/14-111) prohibits an annuitant who
re-enters the service of a department and receives compensation on a regular
payroll from simultaneously receiving a retirement annuity. However under Section 14-103.05(b)(3) of
the Pension Code, the term employee does not include “…any person appointed
by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate unless that person
elects to participate in this system.”
The individual stated he believed his transfer to Assistant
Director of the Agency did not change his status as excluded from the definition
of employee under the Pension Code.
Therefore, he believed he was entitled to continue to receive his
monthly retirement annuity. (Finding
5, pages 19-20)
We recommended the individual return the
retirement annuity payments received since July 1, 2003 to the State Pension
system or continue to seek legislative remedy confirming his current position
as a State Officer with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Agency officials accepted our
recommendation and indicated that on October 7, 2004, a letter was sent to
the Attorney General asking that this issue be added to the Agency’s original
request for an opinion that was requested on April 5, 2004. The Agency continues to monitor this
request, however, as of the date of this response, the matter is still
pending with the Attorney General.
In an Auditor’s Comment we noted that we do not
believe that passage of Senate Bill 3201 (P.A. 93-1029) resolved the issue
concerning the Assistant Director's simultaneous receipt of a paycheck and a
pension. Public Act 93-1029 provides
an advice and consent process for all subsequent Assistant Directors of the
Department but not for the current Assistant Director. While Senate Bill 3201 was approved by a
majority of the Senate members, this vote did not conform with Executive
Appointment procedures set forth in the Senate Rules and, therefore, does not
constitute advice and consent for the current Assistant Director of the
Department. While the advice and
consent procedures were followed with regard to the person's previous
position as Director of the Department of Nuclear Safety, we do not believe
they were followed with regard to the person's current position as Assistant
Director of IEMA. While, because of
P.A. 93-1029, advice and consent by the Senate is not required for this
person to lawfully occupy the position of Assistant Director of IEMA, advice
and consent by the Senate is required for this person to fall into an
exception in the Pension Code permitting him to draw both a paycheck and a
pension simultaneously (40 ILCS 5/14-103.05 (b) (3)). We continue to believe that this
individual may not simultaneously draw both a payroll check and a pension
unless and until he is confirmed in his current position by the Senate.
APPLICATIONS
FOR PERMITS TO TRANSPORT LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
The Agency has not incorporated
information required by statute into their applications for permits to allow
individuals to transport low-level radioactive waste.
The Illinois Low-Level Waste Management Act (420 ILCS
20/9(c)) requires that each application for a permit shall contain:
1.
The estimated quantities and types of wastes to be
transported to a facility located in Illinois;
2.
The procedures and methods used to monitor and inspect the
shipments to ensure that leakage or spills do not occur;
3.
The timetables according to which the wastes are to be
shipped;
4.
The qualification and training of personnel handling
low-level radioactive waste; and
5.
The use of interim storage and transshipment facilities.
According to Agency personnel, they are attempting to amend
the requirements of the statute so the law will be more applicable for the
Agency’s operations. (Finding 6,
pages 21-22)
We
recommended the Agency comply with the Illinois Low-Level Waste Management
Act or continue to seek legislative remedy to the statutory requirement
Agency officials accepted our recommendation and indicated
that they are continuing to seek legislative remedy.
OTHER FINDING
The remaining finding is less
significant and is reportedly being given attention by the Agency. We will review the Agency’s progress
towards the implementation of our recommendation in our next examination.
Mr. Dennis Miner, Bureau of Finance,
provided responses to the findings for the Illinois Emergency Management
Agency.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
We
conducted a compliance examination of the Agency as required by the Illinois
State Auditing Act. We have not
audited any financial statements of the Agency for the purpose of expressing
an opinion because the Agency does not, nor is it required to, prepare
financial statements.
____________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor
General
WGH:TLD:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
De Raimo
Hillger & Ripp were our special assistant auditors for this examination.
DIGEST
FOOTNOTE
#1 NEED TO COMPLETE
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS ON A TIMELY BASIS – PREVIOUS AGENCY
RESPONSES
2003: Agree. Agency will
employ procedures to complete evaluations timely. At times, employees may be involved in disaster response making
it difficult for evaluations to be completed on a timely basis. All staff evaluations were completed. Merit compensation employees receiving pay
increases were compensated at the increased pay level effective back to the
date the raise was to be given, regardless of the timing of the
evaluation. Bargaining unit employees
received their pay increase independent of the date of evaluation.
|
