|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IMPROPER EMPLOYMENT OF STATE EMPLOYEE
The Commission paid telecommunication
and travel expenditures for an individual who was no longer employed by the
Commission. On March 31, 2007, the
Commission’s Deputy General Counsel transferred to the Illinois Department of
Employment Security.
In addition, the Commission did not
have a written agreement with the Department of Employment Security outlining
the services to be performed and the responsibility for payment of
expenditures.
The State Finance Act (30 ILCS
105/9.4) states, The certification on
behalf of the State agency on every State voucher for goods and services
other than payroll or travel voucher shall be as follows:
"I certify
that the goods or services specified on this voucher were for the use of this
agency and that the expenditure for such goods or services was authorized and
lawfully incurred; that such goods or services meet all the required
standards set forth in the purchase agreement or contract to which this
voucher relates; and that the amount shown on this voucher is correct and is
approved for payment. If applicable, the reporting requirements of Section
5.1 of the Governor's Office of Management and Budget Act have been met.”
For departments
under the Civil Administrative Code, the foregoing certification shall be
executed by the Chief Executive Officer of the department from whose
appropriation the payment will be made or his designee, in addition to any
other certifications or approvals which may be required by law.
Additionally, good business practices
suggest that any expenditure made with State funds should be necessary to
support that Agency’s mandated operations.
Commission officials stated the
former Deputy General Counsel’s services were still required on an as-needed
basis by the Commission.
These expenditures totaled $172 and
$83 in telecommunication and travel expenditures, respectively. (Finding 1, pages 9-10)
We recommended the Commission ensure
all expenditures are related to support their operations. Additionally, we recommended the
Commission request reimbursement for the expenditures.
Commission officials disagreed with
our recommendation and stated they paid telecommunication and travel expenditures
for a state employee who used those services specifically for the use of the
Commission.
In an auditor’s comment, we noted the
Commission made expenditures on behalf of an individual who was no longer
employed by it. Although the
Commission claims these expenditures were incurred on behalf of the agency,
it maintained no documentation of the services it received and did not enter
into an agreement detailing the services or associated expenses.
UNTIMELY PUBLICATIONS OF
DECISIONS
The Commission failed to publish its
decisions in a timely manner. During
our review, we noted:
·
Eighty of 170 (47%) orders were not published on the
Commission’s website.
·
For the 90 orders published, it could not be
determined if these orders were timely published.
Additionally,
the Commission did not provide its decisions to the Illinois State Library.
The Illinois Human Rights Act (775
ILCS 5/8-10) requires “decisions of the Commission or panels thereof, whether
on requests for review or complaints, shall be published within 120 calendar
days of the completion of service of the written decision on the parties to
ensure a consistent source of precedent.”
Additionally, the Illinois State Library Act (15 ILCS 320/21 (a))
states “all State agencies shall provide and deposit with the Illinois State
Library sufficient copies of all publications issued by such state agencies
for its collection and for exchange purpose.” (Finding 2, pages 11-12)
We recommended the Commission publish
all of its decisions as required by statute.
Commission officials disagreed with
our recommendation and stated the Commission publishes all decisions within
one week of service to parties by making them available to the public via
publication at the Commission library.
In an auditor’s comment, we stated by
publishing a portion of its decisions on its website, the Commission runs the
risk of misleading the public as to the complete body of precedent, thereby
undermining the statutory purpose of providing a consistent source of precedents
of its decisions.
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
The Commission did not comply with
the Labor and Employment Administrative Code. We reviewed 25 cases, noting 23 (92%) cases in which the
Commission did not serve all parties within five days of the complaint being
filed. The notices were 2 to 38 days
late.
The Illinois Administrative Code,
Title 56, Chapter XI, Section 5300.620 states “Within five days after a
Complaint is duly filed with the Commission by the Department or by an
Aggrieved Party, the Commission shall cause it to be served on all Parties
either personally, or by depositing copies in the mail, properly addressed
and posted, for certified delivery.” (Finding
3, page 13)
We recommended the Commission serve
all parties within the five days as required by the Administrative Code.
Commission officials agreed with our
recommendation.
FAILURE TO
RECONCILE EXPENDITURE RECORDS
The Commission failed to reconcile
records to the Illinois Office of the Comptroller’s reports.
The Commission did not perform
reconciliations between Commission expenditure records and the Comptroller’s
Monthly Appropriation Status Report for 12 of 24 months.
Commission officials stated that
reconciliations were not performed while the Fiscal Officer position was
vacant. (Finding 6, page 16)
We recommended that current
procedures remain in place to ensure that reconciliations are being performed
on a monthly basis. Additionally,
fiscal employees should be cross-trained to ensure a vacancy in the Fiscal
Officer position does not hinder the Commission’s reconciliation process.
Commission officials acknowledged
that it did not reconcile expenditure records during the period in which the
Fiscal Officer position was vacant.
LACK OF SEGREGATION OF DUTIES
The Commission lacked the proper
segregation of duties in approval and payment of vouchers, property control,
management of cash and controls over payroll.
The Fiscal Officer has the authority
to prepare and approve vouchers for payment and also reconciles detailed
records to the Comptroller’s reports.
The Fiscal Officer also is the property control officer, and as such
is involved in taking physical inventories, processing vouchers, maintaining
property records, approving vouchers and reporting property surplus items and
property transfers. The
Administrative Assistant II makes deposits of cash receipts and also
reconciles detailed records to the Comptroller’s records. Lastly, the Commission does not have a person,
independent from the payroll function, to review the payroll prior to
disbursement.
Commission officials stated the
Fiscal Officer position was vacant during a portion of the examination period
and that due to the small size of the Commission proper segregation of duties
is not feasible. (Finding 7, page
17) This finding was first
reported in 2001.
We recommended the Commission revise
its policies and practices to ensure proper safeguards. The Commission should appropriately
segregate duties and assign functions to employees not currently involved in
the fiscal office.
Commission officials acknowledged
this finding with the caveat that there are insufficient budgeted employee
positions to properly segregate duties as recommended. (For the previous agency response see
Digest footnote #1.)
OTHER FINDINGS
The
remaining findings involved the failure to reconcile records, lack of
segregation of duties, improper timekeeping practices, and employee
performance evaluations not being completed timely. We will review progress toward implementation of all
recommendations during our next audit.
___________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor
General
WGH:MKL:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
Our
special assistant auditors were DeRaimo Hillger & Ripp.
DIGEST FOOTNOTE
#1 – LACK OF
SEGREGATION OF DUTIES – Previous Agency Response
2005: Acknowledged. The Commission’s headcount has one staff
person assigned to all fiscal, personnel, and budget duties. The Commission will continue to evaluate
staff assignments to allow for segregation but anticipates that this finding
will continue under the present headcount.
|
