REPORT DIGEST

 

ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

 

 

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION

For the Two Years Ended:

June 30, 2005

 

Summary of Findings:

 

Total this audit                          6

Total last audit                          2

Repeated from last audit           1

 

 

Release Date:

March 9, 2006 

 

State of Illinois

Office of the Auditor General

WILLIAM G. HOLLAND

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 the full report is also available on the worldwide web at

http://www.state.il.us/auditor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS

 

 

¨      The Board had made payments for efficiency billings from improper line item appropriations.  

¨      The Board did not conduct performance evaluations in accordance with its personnel policies.

¨      The Board did not file required reports in a timely manner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{Expenditures and Activity Measures are summarized on the reverse page.}


 

                                             ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

                                                     COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION

                                               For The Two Years Ended June 30, 2005

 

EXPENDITURE STATISTICS

FY 2005

FY 2004

FY 2003

Total Expenditures (All Funds)........................

 

$1,575,913

$1,574,238

$2,116,406

         Personal Services...................................

            % of Total Expenditures....................

            Average No. of Employees...............

$1,072,824

68.1%

20

$1,134,954

72.1%

21

$1,451,428

68.6%

26

        

         Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)..

            % of Total Expenditures....................

$250,653

15.9%

$196,278

12.5%

$307,485

14.5%

        

         Contractual Services...............................

            % of Total Expenditures....................

$52,983

3.3%

$119,318

7.6%

$212,778

10.1%

       

         All Other Items......................................

         % of Total Expenditures                                                                                                                    

$199,453

12.7%

$123,688

7.8%

$144,715

6.8%

 

Cost of Property and Equipment......................

 

$276,310

 

$271,937

 

$279,471

 

SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES (Not Examined)

FY 2005

FY 2004

FY 2003

·         Representative cases filed

·         Charges against union

·         Charges against employer

·         Mediation/Arbitration cases

319

72

278

237

291

85

338

287

241

115

367

286

 

AGENCY DIRECTOR(S)

     During Audit Period:  Fred Wickizer (Acting 7/1/03 – 3/31/05), John Brosnan (effective 4/1/05)

     Currently:  John Brosnan

 



 

 

 

 

 

Efficiency initiative payments totaled $34,687

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employee evaluations not performed in accordance with personnel policies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reports not filed timely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE PAYMENTS

 

The Board 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. 

 

According to Board staff, they received no guidance or documentation from CMS detailing where savings were to occur nor did CMS provide evidence of savings for the amounts billed.  The only guidance received was the amount of payments that should be taken from General Revenue Funds versus other funds.  The Board used $19,344 from its contractual services, commodities, equipment, and telecommunications line item appropriations to pay for the Procurement Efficiency billing.  The Board used $15,343 from its Electronic Data Processing line item appropriation to pay for the Information Technology billing.

 

The Board paid a total of $34,687 from the General Revenue Fund for the efficiency initiatives.  (Finding 1, pages 8-9)

 

We recommended the Board only make payments for efficiency initiative billings from line item appropriations where savings would be anticipated to occur.  Further, we recommended the Board 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 Board’s budget. 

 

      Board officials concurred with our recommendation. 

 

 

 

EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS WERE NOT PERFORMED

 

      The Board did not conduct performance evaluations in accordance with its personnel policies.  We noted the Board did not conduct annual employee performance evaluations for 4 of 28 (14%) employees tested.  There was no record of an annual evaluation performed in the past two years for two employees, in the last three years for another employee or in the past four years for another employee.  In addition 2 of 28 (7%) employees tested had performance evaluations that were conducted 14 and 18 days late.  (Finding 2, page 10)  This finding was first reported in 1999.

 

We recommended the Board comply with its personnel policies and the Illinois Administrative Code by conducting employee performance evaluations in a timely manner.

 

Board officials stated their current record-keeping and reminder system for conducting employee performance evaluations has been revised to ensure timeliness.  (For the previous Board response, see Digest Footnote #1.)

 

UNTIMELY FILING OF REQUIRED REPORTS

 

      The Board did not file required reports in a timely manner.  We noted the following:

 

·        Four of 4 (100%) Travel Headquarter Reports were not filed with Legislative Audit Commission.

 

·        The FY05 internal control certification was filed with the Office of the Auditor General 128 days late.

 

·        The FY05 Agency Fee Imposition Report was filed with the Office of the State Comptroller 114 days late.  (Finding 6, pages 15-16)

 

      We recommended the Board comply with the requirements of the appropriate Acts and file required reports in a timely manner.

 

      Board officials concurred with our recommendation and stated the agency will endeavor to file all such reports in a timely manner.

 

OTHER FINDINGS

 

      The remaining findings pertain to: 1) voucher processing, 2) property control weaknesses, and 3) noncompliance with the Illinois Public Relations Act.  We will follow up on these findings during our next examination of the Board.

 

      Responses to the recommendations were provided by Nicole Hildebrand, Fiscal Officer, in a letter dated January 30, 2006.

 

AUDITORS’ OPINION

 

      We conducted a compliance examination of the Illinois Labor Relations Board as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act.  We have not audited any financial statements of the Illinois Labor Relations Board for the purpose of expressing an opinion because the Illinois Labor Relations Board does not, nor is it required to, prepare financial statements.

 

 

____________________________________

WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General

 

WGH:JSC:pp

 

AUDITORS ASSIGNED

 

      The compliance examination was conducted by the Auditor General’s staff.

 

DIGEST FOOTNOTES

 

#1 – EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS WERE NOT PERFORMED TIMELY – Previous Board Response

 

2003:           The recommendation will be implemented.  The Acting Executive Director will instruct the Personnel Officer to provide line supervisors with multiple notices as to when evaluations are due.  This corrective action measure should be enough to resolve the finding.