|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPERTY CONTROL WEAKNESSES
The Procurement Policy Board (Board) did not maintain adequate
controls over the recording and reporting of its property.
During testing we noted the following:
·
The Board filed 7
of 8 (88%) of its FY05 and FY06 Quarterly Reports of State Property (C-15’s)
with the Office of the Comptroller between 5 and 283 days late. In
addition, we noted that these reports were not accurate. The initial amount
transferred-in from the Department of Central Management Services (DCMS) to
the Board was understated on the Board’s C-15’s by $6,300. Property was not
reported in the quarter in which it was received and the overall amount
reported for additions was understated in both FY05 and FY06.
·
All equipment items purchased during FY05 and FY06
were not added to the Board’s property records.
·
The property
listing provided to DCMS as part of the Board’s annual physical inventory was
not accurate. All equipment items
purchased during the period which had a purchase price greater than $500
could not be traced to the property listing provided to DCMS.
·
Two of 10 (20%)
equipment items selected for testing contained property tag numbers that did
not agree to the property listing. In
addition, one of 10 (10%) equipment items selected for testing was not tagged
with a property identification number.
·
One of 14 (7%) equipment items purchased during FY05
and FY06, totaling $569, was for the purchase of new furniture over $500 and
the Board did not file a new furniture purchase affidavit with DCMS. (Finding 1, pages 8-9)
We recommended the Board implement the necessary internal
controls to ensure that C-15’s are accurately and timely submitted to the
Office of the State Comptroller, equipment items purchased are recorded
timely on the property listing, and that all equipment items are properly
tagged with an identification number and can be traced back to the property
listing. In addition, the Board
should comply with the State Property Control Act concerning the purchase of
new furniture.
Board officials concurred with our recommendations and
indicated staff are now aware of the requirements and are compliant.
LACK OF FORMAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
The Board did
not have formal personnel policies and procedures. During the examination period, the Board employed 4-5
individuals and made personnel related expenditures totaling $130,342 in FY05
and $165,842 in FY06. During testing we noted that the Board did not have formal policies and
procedures that addressed the following personnel and payroll issues:
·
Employee attendance
·
Vacation, Sick, and Personal time
·
Salary / Raises
·
Training policies
§
The Board did not
provide training or policies on sexual harassment.
·
Overtime / Compensatory time
·
Hiring
·
Terminations
·
Evaluations
§
Two out of 5
(40%) employees did not receive an employee evaluation during the examination
period.
·
Leave of Absence
·
Prohibited political activity (Finding 3, pages 12-13)
We recommended the Board develop formal policies
and procedures and provide those to all employees, which includes sexual
harassment training as a component of ongoing and new employee training.
Board officials concurred with our recommendation and stated
that they have established a policy manual, sexual harassment awareness and
prevention training has occurred for all employees, and performance
evaluations for all employees have been conducted.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE RECORDS ACT
The Board did not maintain adequate documentation to support their
financial operations. During our
testing we noted the following:
·
The Board did not maintain copies of its
Quarterly Reports of State Property submitted to the Comptroller. In addition, the Board did not maintain
any documentation supporting amounts reported for additions, deletions or net
transfers.
·
The Board
did not maintain documentation to support amounts reported to the Office of
the State Comptroller in year end accounting reports (Generally Accepted Accounting
Procedures – GAAP forms.)
·
The Board did
not maintain supporting documentation regarding employee salaries for 2 out
of 5 (40%) employees.
·
The Board did not maintain support, such as deposit slips and
treasurer’s drafts, for the deposit of the two refunds received during the
period totaling $640.
·
The Board
was unable to locate 4 of 50 (8%) vouchers selected for testing and related
supporting documentation, totaling $3,853.
(Finding 5, pages 15-16)
We recommended the Board implement
controls to comply with the State Records Act and ensure adequate
documentation is maintained and readily available.
Board officials concurred with our
recommendation and stated that all required documentation will be retained in
the future.
INADEQUATE CONTROL OVER EXPENDITURE RECORDS
The Board did not
adequately monitor expenditures during the period. During testing
we noted the following:
·
The Board did not track and monitor actual expenditures versus
amounts appropriated during FY05 and FY06; therefore, the Board could not
determine its unexpended appropriations available to pay current and upcoming
expenditures.
·
The Board did not perform monthly expenditure reconciliations of
agency records to the Comptroller’s Monthly Appropriation Status Report
during FY05 or FY06. During our
testing, we noted that the Board’s expenditure records were inaccurate and
did not agree to the State Comptroller’s records. We noted differences for yearly and lapse period expenditures
ranging from $1,200 to $66,070. (Finding 6, pages 17-18)
We recommended the Board perform monthly reconciliations of agency
expenditures to Comptroller records as required by Statewide Accounting
Management System (SAMS) to ensure accurate accounting records are
maintained. Further, the Board should implement controls to track and monitor
actual versus budgeted expenditures.
Board officials concurred with our recommendation and
stated that an expense ledger has been created and monthly reconciliation is
now occurring.
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings are reportedly being given attention
by Board management. We will review
progress toward implementation of our recommendations during our next
examination.
Matthew Brown, Executive Director, provided responses to our
recommendations.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
We
conducted a compliance examination of the Board as required by the Illinois
State Auditing Act. We have not
audited any financial statements of the Board for the purpose of expressing
an opinion because the Board does not, nor is it required to, prepare
financial statements.
____________________________________
WGH:CL:pp
AUDITORS ASSIGNED
|
