|
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 billings from CMS
detailing from which line item appropriations savings were anticipated to
occur. According to Agency staff,
they received no documentation or information from CMS detailing the nature
and/or type of savings that CMS anticipated.
The only guidance received was the amount of payments that should be
taken from General Revenue Funds versus other funds for the September 2003
billings.
The Agency
made payments for billings not from line item appropriations where the cost
savings were anticipated to have occurred but from line items that simply had
available monies to make payments.
The Agency used:
·
$2,238,000 from its contractual services, travel,
commodities, printing, equipment, telecommunications, and lump sum purposes
line item appropriations to pay for the Procurement Efficiency billing.
·
$340,137 from its equipment line item appropriation
to pay for the Information Technology billing.
·
$54,640 from its operation of auto and lump sum
purposes line item appropriations to pay for the Vehicle Fleet Management
billing. (Finding 1, pages 11-13)
We
recommended the Agency only make payments for efficiency initiative billings
from line item appropriations where savings would be anticipated to
occur. Further, we recommended the
Agency seek an explanation from the Department of Central Management Services
as to how savings levels were calculated, or otherwise determined, and how
savings achieved or anticipated impact the Agency’s budget.
Agency officials accepted our recommendation and stated the
Agency made payments for efficiency initiative billings from FY04
appropriations based on appropriations used in prior fiscal years. The Efficiency Fund payments were spread
across all programs and funding sources that had these types of costs in
prior years and therefore, line item appropriations as well as operational
lump sum appropriations were used to pay the Efficiency Fund invoices.
EMPLOYEE
PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS NOT PERFORMED ON A TIMELY BASIS
The Agency did not conduct employee performance evaluations
in a timely manner for 5 out of 53 (9%) employees tested during the
examination period. The time elapsed
from the employee’s previous performance reviews ranged from 21 to 40
months. (Finding 2, page 14) This finding was first reported in
1994.
We recommended the Agency comply with internal procedures,
Administrative Code rules and prudent business practices by performing annual
evaluations for all employees in a timely manner.
Agency officials accepted our recommendation and stated the
Agency has attempted to improve the timeliness of performance
evaluations. The Office of Human
Resources will increase its efforts to track performance evaluation due dates
and to ensure that the appropriate manager or supervisor is aware of the need
to complete reviews in a timely manner.
(For the previous Agency responses, see Digest footnote #1.)
NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH ANNUAL TOXIC CHEMICAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Agency published the Fifteenth Annual Toxic Chemical
Report 86 days late, and the Sixteenth Annual Toxic Chemical Report due on
April 1, 2004 has not been published as of December 9, 2004, the date of our
report. The Environmental Protection
Act requires the reports to be filed annually by April 1. (Finding 3, page 15) This finding was first reported in
2002.
We recommended the Agency publish the annual toxic chemical
report by April 1st of each year as required by the Environmental
Protection Act or seek legislative remedy to extend the deadline for
reporting.
Agency officials accepted our recommendation and stated the
Agency has published the Sixteenth Annual Toxic Chemical Report. However, the Agency will seek a legislative
change to either extend the report deadline to a date that more closely
coincides with the time the information is available, or they may seek to
eliminate the requirement because of duplication of information published by
USEPA. (For the previous Agency
responses, see Digest footnote #2.)
NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH POLLUTION PREVENTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Agency did not publish an annual report on the progress
of pollution prevention as required by the Illinois Pollution Prevention Act
(Act). The Act states the Agency
shall on an annual basis utilize the source reduction and recycling
information required to be reported for toxic or hazardous materials and
assess and report the progress of pollution prevention and make a comparison
for all facilities in Illinois.
(Finding 6, page 18)
We recommended the Agency comply with statutory requirements
to publish an annual report on the progress of pollution prevention or seek
legislative remedy.
Agency officials accepted our recommendation and stated they
have not published an annual Pollution Prevention report due to the
difficulty in analyzing and comparing the data. The Agency will seek a legislative change to eliminate this
reporting requirement.
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings are less significant and are
reportedly being given attention by the Agency. We will review progress towards the implementation of our
recommendations during the Agency’s next examination.
The Director provided the responses to our findings and
recommendations.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
Our special assistant auditors stated
that the Water Revolving Fund of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
as of and for the year ended June 30, 2004 is fairly stated in all material
respects.
____________________________________
WILLIAM
G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:JSC:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
Our special assistant auditors for this audit were PTW &
Co.
DIGEST FOOTNOTES
#1 – EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS NOT PERFORMED
ON A TIMELY BASIS – Previous Agency Response
2002:
Accepted. Evaluations have
been performed for the employees identified in the audit and, since they are
covered by collective bargaining agreements that separate performance reviews
and step increases, they were not financially penalized by the late
reviews.
IEPA’s
Office of Human Resources is now using a specially developed computer
database to monitor and enforce the personnel policy requiring annual
performance evaluation for all employees.
This database provides a series of notices that are sent to
supervisors and managers identifying upcoming and past due performance
evaluations.
#2 –
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ANNUAL TOXIC CHEMICAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS –
Previous Department Response
2002:
Accepted. We will make the
necessary adjustments to publish the toxic chemical report by April 1st. Given the improved accessibility of this
federally required data from the USEPA, we are evaluating the continued
necessity of issuing a separate State report. If we conclude that a separate State report duplicates the
information available from the USEPA, we will request that the legislative
requirement be eliminated.
|
