|
REPORT DIGEST COMPLIANCE
EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2008 Summary of Findings: Total this audit 13 Total last audit 7 Repeated from last audit 3
Release Date: February 26, 2009
State of
Office of the Auditor General WILLIAM G. HOLLAND AUDITOR GENERAL
To obtain a copy of the
Report contact: Office of the Auditor
General
(217) 782-6046 or TTY (888)
261-2887 This Report Digest and Full
Report are also available on the worldwide web at |
SYNOPSIS ¨ The Board did not exercise adequate controls over its electronic data processing consulting contracts. ¨ The Board did not maintain an adequate segregation of duties. ¨ The Board did not maintain adequate controls over its disbursements to Mobile Team Units. ¨ The Board did not maintain adequate controls over its contractual employees and its field staff. ¨ The Board did not exercise adequate controls over employee attendance to ensure employee work hours and benefit time were properly recorded and documented. Expenditures and Activity
Measures are summarized on the reverse page.} |
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For
the Two Years Ended June 30, 2008
|
EXPENDITURE STATISTICS |
FY 2008 |
FY 2007 |
FY 2006 |
|
Total Expenditures (All Funds) (1).......
|
$13,982,160 |
$14,086,084 |
$13,842,520 |
|
OPERATIONS
TOTAL...........................
% of Total Expenditures.................. |
$2,497,992
17.87% |
$2,398,734
17.03% |
$2,398,168
17.32% |
|
Personal Services............................
% of
Operations Expenditures......
Average
No. of Employees.......... |
$1,088,602
43.58%
20 |
$1,101,167
45.91%
21 |
$1,081,485
45.10%
23 |
|
Other Payroll Costs (FICA,
Retirement).....................................
% of
Operations Expenditures...... |
$523,899
20.97% |
$466,626
19.45% |
$460,557
19.20% |
|
Contractual Services........................
% of
Operations Expenditures...... |
$283,930
11.37% |
$219,247
9.14% |
$300,404
12.53% |
|
All Other Operations Items.......................
% of
Operations Expenditures.................
|
$601,561
24.08% |
$611,694
25.50% |
$555,722
23.17% |
|
GRANTS
TOTAL...................................
% of Total Expenditures..................
|
$11,484,168
82.13% |
$11,687,350
82.97% |
$11,444,352
82.68% |
|
Cost of
Property and Equipment........... |
$661,429 |
$677,825 |
$619,923 |
|
|
|
SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES
(not examined) |
FY 2008 |
FY 2007 |
FY 2006 |
|
·
Law Enforcement Officers
completing mandated basic training……………………... |
1,337 |
1,485 |
1,644 |
|
·
County Corrections
Officers completing mandated basic training……………………... |
506 |
665 |
766 |
|
·
Public Safety Personnel
trained utilizing
in-service training
delivery system…………... |
43,202
|
42,190 |
42,442
|
|
AGENCY DIRECTOR(S) |
|
During Examination Period: Thomas J. Jurkanin, Ph.D.
Currently: Thomas J. Jurkanin, Ph.D. |
(1) Includes appropriated and non-appropriated fund expenditures. In FY08, expenditures totaled $13,685,676 and $296,484 respectively. In FY07, expenditures totaled $13,575,245 and $510,839 respectively. In FY06, expenditures totaled $13,152,318 and $690,202, respectively.
|
Inadequate controls
over consulting agreements
Professional and
consulting services not competitively procured
Contract not filed
with the Comptroller’s Office
Lack of segregation
of duties in vouchering and property control areas
Authority to
approve, tag and maintain property records and perform physical inventory
Authority to
procure, prepare and approve vouchers and maintain records
Inadequate controls
$54,000 voucher
lacked supporting documentation
$7,803 for food and room charges at a horse racing
event
Board partially accepts
Auditors’ comment
Inadequate controls
No documentation for $23,208 paid to two contractual
employees
Activity reports submitted by field staff not filed
weekly and lacked detailed information
Inadequate controls
Employees worked
less than the scheduled work day
Accrued absence
balances overstated
Leave slips
submitted after leave was taken |
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING CONTRACTS The Board did not did not exercise adequate
controls over its electronic data processing (EDP) consulting agreements.
·
The Board did not competitively procure the
professional consulting services utilized for the design and maintenance of
its website. The Board contracted
with a vendor for an amount not to exceed $19,200 in FY07 to complete the
project; however, payments to this vendor totaled $34,605 in FY07 including
$8,800 in payments not processed under the contract. In addition, the Board did not procure
these services through the Department of Central Management Services (DCMS)
as required.
·
The Board paid $12,203 in FY07 to a vendor for professional
website application services and did not execute and file a contract with the
State Comptroller’s Office until it had already processed $5,288 in payments.
(Finding 1, pages 10-11) We
recommended the Board ensure professional
and artistic contracts exceeding $20,000 are competitively procured and all
amounts are paid under the contract in accordance with the contract terms. Further, we recommended the Board procure
EDP consulting services exceeding $25,000 through DCMS as required by the
Code. We also recommended the Board ensure professional and artistic services
contracts exceeding $5,000 are reduced to writing and filed with the State
Comptroller’s Office. Board officials accepted the recommendation. LACK OF SEGREGATION OF DUTIES The Board did not maintain an adequate segregation of
duties in the vouchering and property control areas. We noted the following:
·
One person had authority to
approve property purchases, tag inventory, maintain the property records,
perform the annual physical inventory and complete the quarterly reports of
State property.
·
One person had authority to
perform procurement functions, prepare and approve vouchers, sign as
receiving officer, maintain accounting records and perform monthly
expenditure reconciliations. (Finding
2, page 12) We recommended the Board
allocate sufficient personnel in order to maintain effective internal control
over the authorization, custody and record keeping duties associated with
vouchering and property control.
Board officials accepted
the recommendation. INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS TO The Board did not maintain adequate controls over its disbursements to Mobile Team Units (MTUs). We noted the following: · One of 14 (7%) vouchers tested totaling $54,000 to an MTU for FY07 death investigation training lacked any supporting documentation. · The Board paid a voucher in FY07 for major case squad training that included $7,803 for food and room charges for the 346 attendees to attend a reception at a horse racing event in the evening after the training. (Finding 3, pages 13-14) We recommended the Board
require and maintain sufficient documentation to substantiate payments for
training to MTUs and ensure all reimbursements for training are proper.
Board officials partially accepted the recommendation and noted the funding for the death investigation training was paid in advance similar to disbursements made under Public Act 82-674.
In an auditors’ comment, we noted the Board never provided us with documentation of the $54,000 voucher,
and the Board is required to maintain documentation to substantiate its
expenditures, regardless of whether the funding was provided in advance. INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER
CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES AND FIELD STAFF
The Board did not maintain adequate controls over its contractual employees and its field staff. We noted the following: · The Board paid $23,208 to two contractual employees during FY07 to provide representative services for the Board before the Illinois General Assembly and other related public bodies and organizations, as necessary. We noted the employees did not submit properly completed weekly status reports required by Board policy detailing hours worked and documentation of the activities performed on behalf of the Board. · Two of 6 (33%) activity reports tested submitted by a field staff employee were submitted monthly instead of weekly as required by Board policy. In addition, those monthly reports did not include detailed information regarding the duties performed for each workday. (Finding 4, pages 15-16) We recommended the Board
require and maintain sufficient documentation to ensure services contracted
for have been provided and that the expenditures are reasonable and necessary. In addition, we recommended the Board take
appropriate action to ensure field staff duties are adequately documented in all
weekly reports. Board officials accepted the recommendation. INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE The Board did not exercise adequate controls over employee attendance to ensure employee work hours and benefit time were properly recorded and documented. We tested six months of attendance records for nine employees and noted the following: · Seven of 9 (78%) employees tested worked less than their scheduled work days according to the Board’s sign in sheets due to arriving late and taking extended breaks and lunch hours. As a result, the Board failed to record 26 hours of benefit time resulting in overstated employee accrued compensated absence balances. · Six of 9 (67%) employees did not submit leave slips timely or in advance when possible. The employees submitted vacation, sick, and personal time leave slips for approval from 6 to 29 days after the leave time was taken. The majority of leave slips were completed only after the employees received a request from the timekeeper. (Finding 5, pages 17-18) We recommended the
Board implement the necessary controls in order to maintain accurate daily
attendance records in compliance with the Code. Specifically, the Board should ensure that
employee attendance records are correct, complete, and reconcile with leave
requests. In addition, the Board
should require
leave requests to be submitted in advance or as timely as possible. In addition, we recommended the Board correct
any employee’s accrued absence balance noted as incorrect and recover any
amounts owed by employees. Board officials accepted the recommendation. OTHER FINDINGS The remaining findings are reportedly being given attention by the Board. We will review the Board's progress towards implementing our recommendations during the next examination period. AUDITORS' OPINION The auditors qualified their report on State Compliance for
findings 08-1, 08-2, and 08-3. Except
for the noncompliance described in these findings, the auditors state the Board
complied, in all material respects, with the requirement described in the
report.
_____________________________________ WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General WGH:GSR:pp ASSIGNED AUDITORS The compliance examination was conducted by the Auditor General’s staff. |