|
INTRODUCTION
This report presents our
State compliance examination for the two years ended June 30, 2004.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE BILLINGS FROM IMPROPER
LINE ITEM APPROPRIATIONS
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.
The Board did not receive guidance or documentation with the
billings from CMS detailing from which line item appropriations savings were
anticipated to occur. According to
Board 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 Board 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 Board used:
·
$13,211 from its EDP line item appropriation of
$50,000 (26 percent) to pay for the Vehicle Fleet Management Initiative billing
·
$19,803 from its employer paid retirement line item
appropriation of $51,300 (39 percent) to pay for the Information Technology
Initiative billing
·
$11,490 of personnel-related appropriations to pay
for the billing for the Procurement Efficiency Initiative.
The Board paid a total of $51,504 for the efficiency
initiative from the General Revenue Fund.
(Finding 1, pages 10-11)
We recommended that the Board only make payments for
efficiency initiative billings from line item appropriations where savings
would be anticipated to occur.
Further, the Board should seek an explanation from the Department of
Central Management Services as to how savings levels were calculated, or
otherwise arrived at, and how savings achieved or anticipated impact the Board’s
budget.
Board officials accepted our
finding and recommendation and will make savings payments from appropriation
lines in which it anticipates obtaining savings.
NEED TO IMPROVE UPON THE TIMELINESS FOR HEARING APPEALS
The Board did
not allow for the speedy hearing of all appeals.
The Board’s
mission is to provide for the speedy hearing of contested appeals and resolve
appeals in a timely fashion by impartial decisions based upon equity and the
weight of the evidence which set forth the Board’s findings, to establish
clear, concise, accurate, and timely communications with the public, and to
maintain a workforce that demonstrates the highest standards of integrity,
efficiency, and performance.
We tested 25
cases and noted the following:
·
One of twenty-five cases was dismissed per request of
the appellant.
·
Eight of twenty-five cases were closed during the
examination period, however, it took between 338 and 627 days from the date
the Board received the appeal to process the appeal.
·
Sixteen of twenty-five were pending as of June 30,
2004. The Board received ten of sixteen cases over a year earlier.
Total appeals pending at year end were:
-
June 30,
2002 - 20,138,
-
June 30,
2003 - 22,502,
-
June 30,
2004 - 33,335.
Board
management stated that they rely on the county of appeal to produce evidence
and the county can request an extension of time to produce the documentation.
In addition, the Board stated they do not have adequate personnel to timely
process the increased number of appeals. (Finding 2, pages 12-13)
We recommended that the Board review its policies and
procedures to adequately address its responsibilities for the timely
processing of all appeals.
The Board officials accepted this finding and recommendation
and stated it will continue to streamline operations in order to expedite the
appeal process.
Rebecca Moody, Chief Fiscal Officer, provided responses to
our findings and recommendations.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
We conducted a compliance examination of the Property Tax
Appeal Board as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. The Board had no locally held funds or
federal or State trust funds.
Consequently, there are no financial statements requiring a financial
audit leading to an opinion.
____________________________________
WILLIAM
G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:GSR:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
De Raimo Hillger & Ripp were our special assistant
auditors for this audit.
|
