! New Applications Received

! Renewals Received

! Complaints Received

! Cases Closed at Prosecution

! Investigative Cases Referred to Prosecution

! Total Receipts Collected

The Department did not staff the Design Professionals Dedicated Employee positions in accordance with statutory requirements.

State statute requires the Department to staff nine full-time employees who are dedicated to the Design Profession. At June 30, 2003, the Department was short one full-time licensing clerk and one full time Assistant Coordinator. In addition, the Department was short one full-time Licensing Coordinator for the period August 1, 2002 to December 15, 2002. The Assistant Coordinator filled the position of Licensing Coordinator, as of December 16, 2002, which then left the Assistant Coordinator position vacant. The Department does have employees in the Licensing and Testing Unit who perform certifications and investigations for the design profession; however, these employees also perform this function for other professions.

Department officials indicated for employees to work exclusively in the licensing and enforcement of design officials results in substantial inefficiencies. Department officials also noted they have been unsuccessful in obtaining legislative change that removes the requirement for those employees to work exclusively in the licensing and enforcement of the design profession. (Finding 2, pages 11-12) This finding has been repeated since 1993.

We recommended the Department staff the Design Professionals Dedicated Positions as mandated by statute or seek a legislative remedy to the current statutory requirements.

Department officials concurred with our recommendation and noted a legislative remedy to the current statutory requirements is contained in Senate Bill 2252. (For previous Department responses see Digest Footnote #1)

During our audit, we noted that 29 out of 50 (58%) employees tested did not have a performance evaluation performed on a timely basis. For the 29 employees noted, none of the evaluations that should have been completed in the audit period were available for review in the employee’s personnel file as of August 5, 2003.

Personnel rules issued by the Department of Central Management Services (80 Ill. Admin. Code 302.270) require performance records to include an evaluation of employee performance prepared by each agency not less often than annually. In addition, Department of Professional Regulation Policy requires all employees, including employees who are eligible for an annual satisfactory performance increase, merit compensation increase or at the maximum salary within the salary range, to have an annual performance evaluation.

According to Department personnel, management has made the evaluation process a priority; however, supervisors assigned responsibility for completion of the evaluations have failed to follow Department policy. Department personnel also noted another contributing factor was the loss of ninety-three staff, specifically supervisory staff, due to early retirements. (Finding 4, page 14) This finding has been repeated since 1993.

We recommended the Department implement controls to ensure evaluations are completed on a timely basis.

Department officials concurred with our recommendation and indicated Human Resources will develop and implement training of supervisory staff on the performance evaluation system and establish a procedure to efficiently monitor evaluations to ensure their completion in a timely manner. (For previous Department responses see Digest Footnote #2)

The Department did not comply with a provision of the Illinois Vehicle Code. We tested 72 and 70 employee vehicle assignments during fiscal year 2002 and 2003, respectively, and noted the following:

According to the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/7-601(c)), every employee of a State agency, who is assigned a specific vehicle owned or leased by the State on an ongoing basis, shall provide a certification annually to the Director. The certification shall affirm that the employee is duly licensed to drive and that the employee has liability insurance coverage extending to the employee when the assigned vehicle is used for other than official State business.

According to Department officials, the Department of Central Management Services has been unsuccessful in establishing a policy under the current bargaining unit contracts that requires an employee assigned a State vehicle on an ongoing basis to certify liability insurance coverage extending to the employee when the vehicle is used for other than State business. (Finding 5, pages 15-16)

We recommended the Department establish and enforce a policy and obtain certification forms for license and automotive liability insurance for State assigned vehicles, as required by statute, or rescind an employee’s authority to use a state assigned vehicle if they refuse to provide the required certification.

Department officials concurred with our recommendation and stated they will work with the Department of Central Management Services to seek guidance on how to correct this finding.

The Department did not maintain adequate controls over the processing, approval and payment of vouchers as required by the Illinois Administrative Code and Department Policy.

During our testing we noted in 34 out of 352 (10%) invoice vouchers reviewed, the vendor invoice was not approved within 30 days of receipt and in 3 out of 50 (6%) commodities invoice vouchers reviewed, the vendor invoice was approved for payment prior to receipt of the receiving report for the goods or services.

In addition, the Department did not implement internal procedures that would permit full compliance with the provisions of the State Prompt Payment Act, as follows:

The Illinois Administrative Code (74 Ill. Admin. Code 900.30) states it is the duty and responsibility of each State agency to develop and implement internal procedures that will permit full compliance with the provisions of the State Prompt Payment Act. All State agencies must maintain written or electronic records reflecting the date or dates on which: the goods were received and accepted or the services were rendered; the proper bill was received by the State agency; approval of payment of a bill was given by the Agency; a vendor bill was disapproved, in whole or in part, based upon a defect or what the State agency believes to be a defect; and the payment was issued by the Comptroller’s Office.

Additionally, the Code (74 Ill. Admin. Code 900.90) requires interest is to be calculated for each individual vendor bill received. A determination of whether an interest penalty is owed is to be made for each individual bill.

Department officials stated these deficiencies were due in part to Departmental procedures not being followed, a need to more efficiently allocate Departmental resources and the learning curve associated with doing more with less. (Finding 7, pages 18-19)

We recommended the Department devote adequate resources and follow established policies and procedures to ensure invoice vouchers are processed, approved and paid in a timely manner to limit interest penalties. In addition, we recommend the Department perform the calculations necessary to determine if they owe any vendors interest as a result of changes in the Illinois Administrative Code and pay required charges.

Department officials concurred with our recommendation and noted the Fiscal Division has already obtained a report that states the required interest penalty payment per the Prompt Payment Act. This report will be received on a monthly basis in the future and vouchers will be processed to make the payment to any eligible vendor.

The Department did not properly report fees collected on the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 Agency Fee Imposition Reports submitted to the Illinois Office of the Comptroller.

The Agency Fee Imposition Report for fiscal year 2002 reported total Department receipts of $33,433,003, which was $1,184,853 less than a report that the Department prepares totaling profession fee collections. Also, The Agency Fee Imposition Report for fiscal year 2003 reported total Department receipts of $22,547,143, which was $116,388 less than a report that the Department prepares totaling profession fee collections. The Department did not maintain support for either year on how the reported amounts were computed compared to the Department’s report; therefore, we were unable to reconcile these discrepancies.

The State Comptroller Act (15 ILCS 405/16.2) requires all State agencies that impose and collect fees to prepare the Agency Fee Imposition Report Form. The form shall list and describe the fees imposed by the Agency, the purpose of the fees, the amount of revenue generated by each fee, and the funds into which the fees are deposited.

Department personnel stated the omission of fees was due to the fact that the Fee Imposition Report does not provide a category for miscellaneous fees collected by the Department and the failure to report fees accurately and maintain documentation of computations was due to input/clerical error and oversight. (Finding 11, pages 26-27)

We recommended the Department ensure the Agency Fee Imposition Report is accurate. We further recommended a supervisory review be performed prior to the submission of the report to the Comptroller’s Office to ensure accuracy and maintenance of documentation for all reported fees.

Department officials concurred with our recommendation and indicated from fiscal years 2002 to 2003 the Department was better able to identify a large portion of miscellaneous fees and determined that six fees had not been reported in fiscal year 2002. With the new licensing/financial reporting database being added the number of fees categorized as miscellaneous will now be able to be correctly identified.

The Department provided compensation to board members of 18 various boards in excess of the statutorily mandated maximum of $50 per day.

We noted the Department provides compensation that exceeds $50 per day for services rendered by each member of the following boards: Architect Examining Committee ($200), Illinois Board of Athletic Trainers ($75), Land Surveyors Examining Committee ($200), Medical Examining Committee ($200), Nurse Examining Committee ($125), Optometry Technical Advisory Board ($100), Optometry Examining Committee ($200), Professional Engineer Examination Committee ($200), Psychology Examining Committee ($100), Public Accounting Examining Committee ($200), Structural Engineer Examining Committee ($200), Landscape Architecture Board ($150), Wholesale Drug Distributor Advisory Board ($200), Physician Assistant Advisory Committee ($100), Respiratory Care Board ($100), Acupuncture Board ($100), Advanced Practice Nursing Board ($125), and Perfusion Advisory Board ($100).

The Civil Administrative Code of Illinois requires, except as otherwise provided in any licensing Act, from amounts appropriated for compensation and expenses of boards, each member of each board shall receive compensation at a rate, established by the Director, not to exceed $50 per day, for the member’s service.

Department officials attributed the paid per diems that exceeded the $50 limit to an oversight. (Finding 12, page 28)

We recommended the Department provide compensation at a rate not to exceed $50 per day for services rendered by each member, as required by the Code or seek a legislative remedy regarding the statutory requirement.

Department officials concurred with our recommendation and noted they have apparently been in violation of this statute since 1988. All per diem levels were established prior to this audit period and the Department continued historical per diem payments in accordance with past practice. Beginning in fiscal year 2004, per diems for all Department of Professional Regulation board members have been eliminated.

During our testing, we noted the fees set by the Department, through the Emergency Rules for the Administration of the Act (68 Ill. Admin. Code 1460.80), published on April 10, 2003, were not in accordance with the Illinois Roofing Industry Act (Act). The Emergency Rules state the renewal fee is set at $62.50 per year and the fee for issuance of a duplicate/replacement license for a change of name or address is $20. Per the Act the biennial renewal fee shall not exceed one-half of the initial application fee and issuance of a duplicate/replacement license for a change of name or address should be $10. The Department has set the initial application fee at $125; therefore, the biennial renewal fee should not exceed $62.50. In addition, a fee for an application filed during the second half of the biennial period was not established by the Emergency Rules.

The Department renewed 2,472 roofer licenses on June 30, 2003 and collected $309,000 in fees for those licenses under the Emergency Rules. Based on what is allowed by the Act, the Department collected approximately $154,500 in excess of the allowable renewal fees.

Department officials stated the intent was to set the biennial renewal fee to be $62.50 per year and the fee for issuance of a duplicate/replacement license to be $20. Department officials further stated the inconsistency with the Act was due to an oversight. (Finding 18, pages 38-39)

We recommended the Department amend the Rules to set the correct fees as mandated by the Act, or seek a legislative remedy to the statutory requirement. In addition, we also recommended the Department seek guidance to determine if amounts collected in excess of statutorily allowed fees should be refunded.

Department officials concurred with our recommendation and indicated they will seek a legislative remedy and will also seek guidance to determine if amounts collected in excess of the statutorily allowed fees should be refunded.

During our testing, we noted the Department hired three investigative staff for the enforcement of the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security and Locksmith Act of 1993 (Act). The Department failed to require the surrender of the private detective license from one of the staff, as required by the Act.

The Act states the Director shall employ, pursuant to the Personnel Code, personnel on a full or part-time basis for the enforcement of this Act. As noted in the Act, no investigator may hold an active license issued pursuant to the Act, nor may an investigator have a financial interest in a business licensed under the Act.

According to Department personnel, the active license of the investigator was not surrendered to the Department due to oversight. (Finding 19, page 40)

We recommended the Department ensure any person licensed under this Act who is employed in any capacity by the Department surrender his or her license to the Department for the duration of employment as required by the Act.

Department officials concurred with our recommendation and indicated Human Resources will develop and implement a system for ensuring that all employees who hold a license and are required to surrender their license to the Department will do so in a timely manner.

The remaining findings are reportedly being given attention by the Department. We will review the Department’s progress toward the implementation of our recommendations in our next audit.

Responses to our findings and recommendations were provided by the Department in a correspondence dated June 21, 2004.

___________________________________

WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General

WGH:RPU:pp

Our special assistant auditors were PTW & Co.