REPORT DIGEST

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2015

Release Date:  April 14, 2016

FINDINGS THIS AUDIT:  5

CATEGORY:  NEW -- REPEAT -- TOTAL
Category 1:  0 -- 0 -- 0
Category 2:  3 -- 2 -- 5
Category 3:  0 -- 0 -- 0
TOTAL:  3 -- 2 -- 5

FINDINGS LAST AUDIT: 4

Category 1:	Findings that are material
weaknesses in internal control and/or a
qualification on compliance with State
laws and regulations (material
noncompliance).
Category 2:	Findings that are
significant deficiencies in internal
control and noncompliance with State laws
and regulations.
Category 3:	Findings that have no
internal control issues but are in
noncompliance with State laws and
regulations.

State of Illinois, Office of the Auditor
General
FRANK J. MAUTINO, 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
www.auditor.illinois.gov

SYNOPSIS
• (15-01) The Commission lacked adequate
controls over the administration of its
accounts receivables.
• (15-03) The Commission failed to
exercise controls over its employees’
accrual and use of benefit time, overtime,
and equivalent earned time.
• (15-04) The Commission did not have
adequate controls over the administration
of State vehicles.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

NEED TO IMPROVE CONTROLS OVER ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE

The Commission did not have adequate
controls over the administration of its
accounts receivables.

The Commission did not make adequate
collection attempts on 10 of 10 (100%)
accounts receivables tested. We noted the
following:

•The Commission failed to refer 5 of 10
(50%) accounts receivable tested, totaling
$15,287, to the Office of the
Comptroller’s (Comptroller) Offset System.
•The Commission failed to refer 10 of 10
(100%) accounts receivable tested,
totaling $29,868, to the Department of
Revenue Debt Collection Bureau.
•The Commission did not refer 8 of 10
(80%) accounts receivable tested, totaling
$28,687, to the Illinois Attorney General
to be certified as uncollectible. (Finding
1, pages 10-11)

We recommended the Commission pursue all
reasonable and appropriate procedures to
collect on outstanding debts as required.

Commission officials agreed with the
finding and stated the Commission will
resume monthly reporting requirements to
the Department of Revenue’s Debt
Collection Bureau. They also stated the
section that handles the referrals of
accounts receivable is comprised of new
employees. They further stated the
Commission will evaluate workload of
current staff and determine when these
additional duties can be assigned.

NEED TO IMPROVE CONTROLS OVER EMPLOYEE
TIME

The Commission did not exercise adequate
controls over its employees’ accrual and
use of benefit time, overtime, and
equivalent earned time (EET).

We tested timekeeping records for four
months and noted the following:

•Eight of 25 (32%) employees tested had
discrepancies between the use of vacation/
sick/personal time recorded on the
employees’ time records and the use
recorded in the Commission’s timekeeping
system. Discrepancies ranged from 0.5 to
7.5 hours. Three of the employees’ times
recorded were misclassified and three of
the employees’ times recorded were entered
on the wrong day. The errors were
subsequently corrected.
• Five of 25 (20%) employees tested did
not have documentation supporting prior
approval of vacation time use. Fifteen
requests for time off were submitted from
1 to 27 days after vacation time was used,
and four requests for time off were not
dated so timeliness could not be
determined.
We also tested EET records and noted the
following:
• One of six (17%) employees tested had a
four hour discrepancy between the use of
EET recorded on the employee’s time record
and the use recorded in the Commission’s
timekeeping system. The error was
subsequently corrected.
• One of six (17%) employees tested did
not have documentation supporting prior
approval of the accrual of EET time and
four of six (67%) employees tested did not
have documentation supporting prior
approval for the use of EET. Fifteen of
the EET reporting/usage forms were
submitted 1 to 36 days after the time was
accrued or used, and two of the EET
reporting/usage forms were not dated so
timeliness could not be determined.
• One of six (17%) employees did not use
EET in accordance with Commission Policy.
Two transactions occurred where the
employee used quarter-hour increments of
EET.

We tested overtime records and noted seven
of eight (88%) employees tested did not
have documentation supporting prior
approval to work overtime. Fifty-seven
requests for overtime pay were submitted
from 1 to 30 days after the overtime was
worked. (Finding 3, pages 13-14)

We recommended the Commission ensure leave
time is accurately recorded and agrees
with the use recorded by employees. We
also recommended support is maintained to
document compliance with leave, EET, and
overtime policies.

Commission officials agreed that leave
time must be accurately recorded and used
by employees. They stated they will
continue to train staff on timekeeping
policies and procedures.

Commission officials disagreed with part
of the finding, specifically regarding
documentation supporting prior approval of
vacation time use, EET time use and prior
approval to work overtime. Commission
officials stated policies allow for the
verbal approval of vacation time usage,
EET time usage and the ability to work
overtime. They further stated employees
verbally make the request and their
supervisor verbally approves the request.
Employees then document the time usage/
worked on the appropriate form for
signature on the form verifies the
vacation time, EET time or overtime was
requested and approved according to their
policy.

In an auditors’ comment, we noted the
Commission’s policy requires the use of
vacation time, the accrual and use of EET,
and the approval to work overtime to be
approved before the time is accrued or
used. The Commission could not provide
documentation to support time was approved
in advance. The documentation provided was
signed after the time was accrued or used.

NEED TO IMPROVE CONTROLS OVER STATE
VEHICLES

The Commission did not properly certify
license and automotive liability coverage
for all employees assigned a State-owned
vehicle during the examination period. In
addition, the Commission’s vehicle use
policy (policy) did not contain all
information as required by the State
Vehicle Use Act (Act).

During testing, we noted the following:

• For 5 of 37 (14%) employees tested, the
Commission did not ensure the individuals
assigned an automobile had annual
licensure and liability insurance
certifications on file.
• The Commission’s policy did not contain
a policy concerning requirements for
emergency use of take-home vehicles or
procedures regarding daily vehicle use
logs and mileage recording. (Finding 4,
pages 15-16)

We recommended the Commission obtain
proper certifications of licensure and
automotive liability coverage for
employees assigned State vehicles as
required by the Illinois Vehicle Code. We
also recommended the Commission update its
vehicle use policy to include information
as required by the Act.

Commission officials agreed with the
finding and stated the Commission will
require employees with Individually
Assigned Vehicles to certify annually in
July that they are maintaining the
required additional insurance coverage.
The Commission also stated they will
revise the vehicle use policy to expand on
the current coverage regarding the
emergency use of vehicles and daily
vehicle use logs.

OTHER FINDINGS

The remaining findings pertain to
inaccurate fee imposition reports and
inadequate controls over grant
documentation. We will review the
Commission’s progress toward
implementation of our recommendations in
our next examination.

ACCOUNTANT’S OPINION

We conducted a compliance examination of
the Commission for the two years ended
June 30, 2015 as required by the Illinois
State Auditing Act. The accountants stated
the Commission complied, in all material
respects, with the requirements described
in the report.

FRANK J. MAUTINO
Auditor General

FJM:PH

AUDITORS ASSIGNED

This examination was performed by the
Office of the Auditor General’s staff.