INTRODUCTION
Our 1998 audit of Southern Illinois University is presented in four volumes: State
Compliance Audit; Federal Compliance Audit; Financial Audits; and Supplementary
Financial Information. The State Compliance Audit contains five compliance
findings, and the Federal Compliance Audit contains seven findings.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
NEED TO CONTINUE YEAR 2000 EFFORTS
The University’s efforts to define and correct impending computer problems due
to the impact of the Year 2000 are not fully adequate. The University has made progress in
addressing the documentation issues surrounding the Year 2000. In the event the Oracle
System implementation does not stay on schedule, the University would need to consider
alternative options. Lack of adequate back-up plans could force the University to adopt a
reactive rather than a proactive stance when addressing the issues. The University should
ensure all future computer purchases follow an established protocol, ensuring the proper
technical verbiage has been included to protect the University in the event an application
fails or crashes in 2000 resulting in an interruption of business. (Finding 98-5, page 16
in State Report)
We recommended the University continue taking steps necessary to ensuring a successful
conversion before, during and after 2000.
University officials accepted our recommendation and stated that the University
continues its Year 2000 Compliance efforts with the implementation of Oracle. As a back
up, SIUC’s mission critical legacy systems are being modified to handle Year 2000
conversion problems. At SIUE, over 90% of its mission-critical application systems already
have been converted and tested successfully to ensure Year 2000 compliance, and the
remainder will be completed in 1999. SIUE reports it is currently inventorying and testing
every microcomputer on its main campus to assure Year 2000 compliance.
LACK OF PROPER DOCUMENTATION FOR ADMISSION EXCEPTIONS
The University is not maintaining sufficient documentation to support the decision
to admit high school students who do not meet the minimum requirements for high school
course work credits. Three of the ten students selected for testing had deficiencies in
one or more areas of the required high school curriculum. The admission files did not
contain any documentation as to the consideration of the minimum high school standards or
the reasons why an exception to the admission standards was granted. The University does
not currently have a policy requiring the documentation of admissions of students not
meeting the prerequisites.
The Southern Illinois University Management Act states that "no new student shall
be admitted to...the University unless such student has satisfactorily completed at least
15 units of high school course work from the following 5 categories:
4 years of English
3 years of social studies
3 years of mathematics
3 years of science
2 years of electives"
This lack of documentation undermines the intent of the statute to foster high academic
standards and to ensure that all applicants are treated equitably. (Finding 98-2, page 13
in State Report)
We recommended the University follow the statutory requirements for the proper
admission of students and maintenance of documentation for exception situations.
University officials stated that they accepted our recommendation.
LACK OF CONTROLS OVER EQUIPMENT FOR HONORS PROGRAM
The University did not maintain adequate records for all the equipment purchased
through the Honors Program. Seven of seventeen pieces of equipment charged to the Honors
Program and selected for testing were on loan to faculty members. However the proper
request forms were not completed for six of these items. The total value of this
equipment, which was all in the possession of one faculty member, was $3,268. In addition,
the University does not appear to have adequate control procedures to ensure that all
equipment is retrieved from departing professors. The State Property Control Rules require
the University to be responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control records
over property and equipment. (Finding 98-1, page 12 in State Report)
We recommended the University strengthen its procedures over property and equipment
loaned to professors. Appropriate loan request forms should be completed and approved on a
timely basis prior to the removal of any equipment from the campus. In addition, the
University should emphasize to professors that University equipment must be returned upon
their departure.
University officials accepted our recommendation and stated that the missing
documentation has been placed in the correct files, and that a plan has been put in place
to prevent such gaps in the records in the future.
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings are less significant and have been given appropriate
attention by the University. We will review the University’s progress towards the
implementation of our recommendations in our next compliance audit.
Mr. Ron Cremeens, Executive Director of Audits, provided the University’s
responses.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
Our auditors stated the June 30, 1998 financial statements of the University
are fairly presented.
____________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:KMM:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. were our special assistant auditors for these
audits. |
