FY 1997

FY 1996

FY 1995

• Total Expenditures (All Funds)
  Expenditures:
  Appropriated Funds
  Non-appropriated Funds
  OPERATIONS TOTAL
  % of Total Expenditures
  Personal Services
  % of Operations Expenditures
  Average No. of Employees
  Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)
  % of Operations Expenditures
  Contractual Services
  % of Operations Expenditures
  Mandatory Arbitration Total
  % of Operations Expenditures
  All Other Operations Items
  % of Operations Expenditures
  GRANTS TOTAL
  % of Total Expenditures

• Cost of Property and Equipment

$7,906,547

$212,553,302
$120,485
$169,361,388
79.63%
$143,494,721
84.72%
2,149
$8,669,840
5.12%
$3,212,875
1.90%
$4,994,249
2.95%
$8,989,703
5.31%
$43,312,399
1.9%

$21,654,436

$7,470,227

$203,294,602
$1,407,378
$164,688,780
80.45%
$138,065,502
83.83%
2,142
$8,136,565
4.94%
$3,368,689
2.05%
$4,983,220
3.03%
$10,134,804
6.15%
$40,013,200
2.2%

$21,950,482

$7,762,219

$190,065,633
$762,562
$151,958,295
79.63%
$126,625,105
83.33%
2,129
$8,272,921
5.44%
$3,198,935
2.11%
$4,747,824
3.12%
$9,113,510
6.00%
$38,869,900
20.37%

$20,215,156

1996

1995

• Supreme Court of Illinois:
  Cases Filed
  Cases Disposed
• Appellate Court of Illinois:
  Cases Filed
  Cases Disposed

• Circuit Courts of Illinois:
  Cases Filed
  Cases Disposed

   

3,677
3,451

8,982
9,397

4,390,047
4,117,153

3,346
3,420

9,010
9,790

4,249,833
4,181,238

During Audit Period: Joseph Schillaci
Currently: Joseph Schillaci

 

Travel reimbursements may be taxable

Inefficient voucher processing procedures

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

PROCEDURES WERE NOT ADEQUATE TO ENSURE TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENTS COMPLIED WITH IRS REGULATIONS

Judges and associate judges of the circuit courts are reimbursed for travel expenses in accordance with the Circuit Court Judges Travel Expense Act (Act). Due to the intricate nature of IRS regulations, there appears to be a risk that some reimbursements made pursuant to the Act are also taxable income. If travel reimbursements are taxable income, then the Court's administrative office would be required to make reports of this income and to follow the applicable withholding procedures in order to comply with IRS regulations. Furthermore, additional documentation may be necessary to support conclusions made regarding whether reimbursements are taxable or not.

The Act allows travel reimbursements to circuit and associate judges when traveling outside their county of residence in connection with their judicial duties and allows associate judges travel reimbursements when traveling within their county of residence in connection with their judicial duties. According to IRS regulations, travel reimbursements for commuting between an employee's residence and the employee's main or regular place of work (i.e. headquarters) are generally taxable income. In addition, reimbursements for meals and lodging costs can only be excluded from taxable compensation if they are based upon documentation that supports the business purpose of the expenditure. (Finding 2, page 13)

We recommended the Court's Administrative Office implement procedures necessary to determine and to document whether certain reimbursements made pursuant to the Circuit Court Judges Travel Expense Act are non-taxable business expenses. The Court's Administrative Office responded that it has begun to review relevant travel vouchers and its procedures.

NUMEROUS SMALL VOUCHERS WERE PROCESSED THROUGH THE STATE DISBURSEMENT SYSTEM

During the audit period, the Court used the State disbursement system to pay 4,252 vendor invoices which ranged from $0.46 to $49.99. Processing invoices for less than $50 is generally more efficient using a petty cash system instead of the State disbursement system. (Finding 1, page 12)

The Court agreed with our recommendation to increase usage of current petty cash funds and to consider the need for additional petty cash funds.

OTHER FINDINGS

The remaining findings were less significant and, according to the Court's Administrative Office, are being given appropriate attention. We will review progress toward implementing our recommendations in our next audit.

Responses to the recommendations were provided by the Court's Chief Internal Auditor, Ms. Rusti Cummings.

AUDITORS' OPINION

The auditors stated the financial statements of the Mandatory Arbitration Fund are fairly presented as of and for the years ended June 30, 1997 and 1996.

____________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General

WGH:GSS:pp

SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS

The audit was performed by Arthur Andersen, LLP.