Office did not implement adequate controls over reporting with the SAMS system
Reconciliations were not accurately and timely prepared
Two refunds were misclassified in the SAMS system
Two funds with unexplained differences could not be reconciled
Organizations were not excluded from the next solicitation period for not filing
required certifications. |
INTRODUCTION
Our 1998 audit of the Comptroller's Fiscal Officer Responsibilities is presented in two
parts. The compliance part, with our findings and recommendations, is presented in one
document. The financial part, with our opinion on the budgetary financial statements, is
presented in the State Comptroller's "Illinois Traditional Budgetary Financial
Report." Our opinion on the Statewide financial statements prepared in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles is contained in the separately issued
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LACK OF CONTROLS OVER FISCAL OFFICER REPORTING
On July 1, 1997 the Office of the Comptroller (Office) implemented the new
Statewide Accounting Management System (SAMS). At the time of system implementation, the
Office had not yet established adequate controls over certain areas of reporting. During
our audit, we noted the following:
- The SAMS program specifications did not meet the desired budgetary basis report
objectives. SAMS reports generated to replace the Comptroller's Uniform Statewide
Accounting System (CUSAS) reports, were not compiled in a manner conducive to the
efficient generation of the Traditional Budgetary Financial Statements, and did not
provide an adequate audit trail by fund and activity category. Two of the SAMS reports did
not contain cumulative data.
- Total unexpended budget authority per the Monthly Appropriation Status Report, SB01, did
not agree to data in certain other reports, the SAMS Extended Reports. In reconciling the
reports we noted a $500,000 supplemental appropriation to the Illinois State Board of
Education for the School Technology Fund was not included in the SB01 report.
- Vouchers payable was not completely reconciled to supporting documentation at June 30,
1998 because the Office did not implement procedures to verify amounts recorded as
vouchers payable until January, 1998.
- Two refunds were entered into the SAMS system with incorrect class codes. Therefore,
there was a misclassification of function amounts in the SAMS Extended Reports.
- Six funds had unexplained differences in prior year adjustments. The Office was able to
reconcile four of the funds during the audit. Two funds, containing a total difference of
$1,712 remain unreconciled.
Per Office personnel, the above weaknesses were due to insufficient planning for the
SAMS system to address all reporting requirements by fund and activity category. In
addition, inadequate controls were in place to ensure that reconciliations were being
performed and that an appropriate audit trail for the preparation of the Traditional
Budgetary Financial Statements was maintained. (Finding 98-1, pages 12-14)
We recommended the Office develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure the
efficient generation of the Traditional Budgetary Financial Statements on the SAMS system
and the existence of an adequate audit trail to verify amounts reported by fund and
activity category. We also recommended the Office strengthen its controls over reporting
to ensure timely reconciliations are performed and adequate documentation is maintained.
Comptroller officials agreed with our recommendations and indicated the office would
develop and implement policies and procedures, and strengthen controls over reporting.
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE VOLUNTARY PAYROLL DEDUCTION ACT
The Office of the Comptroller did not receive the required annual certification
from any of the organizations that participate in the State and Universities Combined
Appeal. Per the Voluntary Payroll Deduction Act of 1983 qualified organizations shall
submit to the Comptroller between January 1 and March 1 of each year, a statement that the
organization is in compliance with the requirements set forth within the Act. The
Comptroller's Office did not exclude any of the organizations from the next solicitation
period as required by statute for not filing the required certifications.
Office management indicated they were unaware of the statutory responsibilities
regarding certification and exclusion of organizations from participation for failure to
submit the statement. (Finding 98-2, pages 15-16)
We recommended the Office follow the statute and exclude any organizations from the
next solicitation period if they fail to file the required certification.
Comptroller officials agreed with our recommendation and stated responsibilities and
procedures will be developed to ensure compliance with the Payroll Deduction Act.
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings were less significant and are being given appropriate
attention by the Comptroller. We will review progress toward implementation of our
recommendations during our next audit.
Mr. Stan Brown, Director of Internal Audits, provided the Office responses to our
findings and recommendations.
AUDITORS' OPINIONS
Our auditors state the traditional budgetary financial statements present fairly the
fund balances and receipts and expenditures at June 30, 1998, relating to the Fiscal
Officer Responsibilities of the Comptroller.
In addition, the Comptroller has issued a separate Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report which has additional details on the financial activities of State agencies and
funds. Our auditors report that the financial statements in the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 1998 are fairly presented.
-
_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:RPU:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
Pandolfi, Topolski, Weiss & Co., Ltd. were our special assistant auditors.
|
