REPORT DIGEST OFFICE OF THE STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2008 Summary of Findings: Total this audit 7 Total last audit 2 Repeated from last audit 1 Release Date: June 25, 2009 State of Illinois Office of the Auditor General WILLIAM G. HOLLAND AUDITOR GENERAL To obtain a copy of the Report contact: Office of the Auditor General Iles Park Plaza 740 E. Ash Street Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 782-6046 or TTY (888) 261-2887 This Report Digest and Full Report are also available on the worldwide web at http://www.auditor.illinois.gov

INTRODUCTION The Office of the State Appellate Defender was created on August 18, 1972 through the State Appellate Defender Act (725 ILCS 105/10). The primary function of the Office is to represent indigent persons on appeal in criminal cases when appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, or the Circuit Court. SYNOPSIS ¨ The Office did not exercise adequate control over its travel expenditures. ¨ The Office did not exercise oversight over employees’ activity reports and timekeeping reports. ¨ The Office did not adopt any administrative rules. ¨ The Office requested appropriations for certain capital case costs from the General Revenue Fund rather than the Capital Litigation Trust Fund as statutorily required. {Expenditures and Activity Measures are summarized on the reverse page.}

OFFICE OF THE STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION

For The Two Years Ended June 30, 2008

EXPENDITURE STATISTICS	FY 2008	FY 2007	FY 2006
· Total Expenditures (All Funds).........	$24,427,932	$23,990,323	$23,279,591
Personal Services........................ % of Total Expenditures......... Average No. of Employees………	$14,362,411 58.8% 264	$14,451,298 60.2% 277	$13,773,101 59.2% 274
Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)................................... % of Total Expenditures........	$3,425,792 14.0%	$2,717,367 11.3%	$2,074,753 8.9%
Contractual Services................... % of Total Expenditures.........	$2,251,722 9.2%	$2,364,958 9.9%	$2,818,413 12.1%
Lump Sum and Other Purposes.... % of Total Expenditures...........	$3,150,038 12.9%	$3,323,302 13.9%	$3,469,919 14.9%
All Other Operations Items.......... % of Total Expenditures.........	$1,237,969 5.1%	$1,133,398 4.7%	$1,143,405 4.9%
· Cost of Property and Equipment......	$2,412,793	$2,370,254	$2,448,576

SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES (not examined)	FY 2008	FY 2007	FY 2006
· Cases Appointed.........................................	3,081	3,253	3,078
· Briefs Filed: Original Briefs............................................ Anders Briefs............................................. Death Penalty Briefs................................... Motions to Withdraw/Dismiss Filed.............. Summary Motions Filed............................... Total.....................................................	1,791 468 5 527 246 3,037	1,960 512 1 607 168 3,248	2,084 413 4 587 150 3,238
· Cases Closed..............................................	3,185	3,213	3,299
· Cases Pending at Year End..........................	5,026	5,168	5,162
· Average Cost per Case Closed.....................	$7,566	$7,371	$7,004

	STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER
	During Examination Period: Theodore A. Gottfried (until December 31, 2007) Michael J. Pelletier (as of January 1, 2008) Currently: Michael J. Pelletier
Duplicate travel payments resulted in overpayments of $249 Travel voucher locations and times differed from employee activity reports Inconsistencies noted in employee timekeeping and activity reports No administrative rules had been adopted for the expungement program Capital post-conviction case appropriations requested from wrong fund		FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS INADEQUATE CONTROL OVER TRAVEL EXPENDITURES The Office made duplicate travel payments to one employee on three instances, resulting in overpayments of $249. Further, one employee received $574 in travel reimbursements for the same six destinations on five consecutive travel vouchers, although the destinations, activities, and hours on 3 of 5 (60%) of those vouchers differed from employee activity reports. Also, 2 of 25 (8%) travel vouchers tested included errors. (Finding 1, Pages 9-10) We recommended the Office carefully review travel vouchers to ensure consistency with travel support, reasonableness, mathematical accuracy, and validity of travel claims prior to payment. Further, we recommended the Office consider the need to recoup any travel overpayments. Office officials responded that necessary steps would be taken to ensure consistency and accuracy of travel vouchers submitted, and to prevent duplicate payments. Further, officials stated that it would be too time consuming and costly to attempt to recoup $249 in overpayments. INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER EMPLOYEES’ ACTIVITY AND TIMEKEEPING REPORTS The Office did not exercise oversight over employees’ activity reports and timekeeping reports, which were used to monitor employee attendance, accountability, and performance. Daily activity reports for 3 of 8 (38%) employees tested differed from timekeeping reports. In addition, activity reports could not be provided for one employee. (Finding 2, Pages 11-12) We recommended the Office promptly review employee activity and timekeeping reports for accuracy and consistency, and consider implementing other controls to ensure employees are present at reported locations. Office officials responded that procedures would be reviewed and established to ensure employees are present at reported locations. Further, officials responded that activity and timekeeping reports would be spot checked regularly for accuracy and consistency. FAILURE TO ADOPT ADMINISTRATIVE RULES The Office did not adopt any administrative rules required by the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act and rules related to the expungement program required by the State Appellate Defender Act. The Office had implemented the mandated expungement program, but had not adopted formal administrative rules necessary to adequately inform third parties of their rights in this regard. (Finding 4, Page 14) We recommended the Office adopt administrative rules regarding the agency’s organization, information requests, rulemaking, and the expungement program as required by statute. Office officials agreed with the finding and recommendation. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE CAPITAL CRIME LITIGATION ACT The Office requested appropriations for certain capital case costs from the General Revenue Fund rather than the Capital Litigation Trust Fund as required by the Capital Crimes Litigation Act (Act). Those appropriations were for Office expenses for capital post-conviction cases in representing petitioners, for petitions filed, and for attorney representation in such cases. Capital cases comprised 3% and 7% of Capital Post-Conviction Unit cases in Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008, respectively. (Finding 7, pages 18-19) We recommended the Office request appropriations from the proper fund as required by the Act. Office personnel responded they would comply with the Act for future appropriation requests. OTHER FINDINGS The remaining findings are reportedly being given attention by the Office. We will review the Office’s progress toward implementation of our recommendation in our next examination. AUDITORS' OPINION We conducted a compliance examination of the Office as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. We have not audited any financial statements of the Office 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:LW:pp ASSIGNED AUDITORS This examination was performed by the staff of the Office of the Auditor General.