|
REPORT DIGEST ILLINOIS COURT OF CLAIMS COMPLIANCE
EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2007 Summary of Findings: Total this report 5 Total last report 3 Repeated findings 3 Release Date: April 3, 2008
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 are also available on the worldwide web at http://www.state.il.us/auditor |
SYNOPSIS ¨ Management did not fully address known deficiencies over personal services. ¨ The Court of Claims did not adequately reconcile receipts and expenditure records to Office of the State Comptroller reports. {Expenditures and Activity
Measures are summarized on the reverse page.} |
ILLINOIS COURT OF CLAIMS
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For The Two Years Ended June 30, 2007
|
EXPENDITURE STATISTICS |
FY 2007 |
FY 2006 |
FY 2005 |
||||
|
Total
Expenditures (All Funds)................... |
$52,043,710 |
$51,517,677 |
$58,911,639 |
||||
|
OPERATIONS TOTAL................................. % of Total
Expenditures........................ |
$ 1,343,463 2.6% |
$ 1,332,516 2.6% |
$ 1,431,963 2.4% |
||||
|
Personal Services (excluding judges)....... % of Operations Expenditures............. Average Number of Employees: Part-time (excludes 7 judges not paid from Full-time................................ |
$ 824,560 61.4% 27 5 |
$ 872,242 65.4% 27 5 |
$ 894,352 62.5% 28 5 |
||||
|
Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement).................................................... % of Operations Expenditures............. |
$ 181,932 13.5% |
$ 161,069 12.1% |
$ 239,161 16.7% |
||||
|
Contractual Services.............................. % of Operations Expenditures............. |
$8,274 0.6% |
$ 16,567 1.2% |
$ 8,762 0.6% |
||||
|
Lump Sum and Other Purposes............... % of Operations......................................
Expenditures |
$ 294,020 21.9% |
$ 248,643 18.7% |
$ 262,702 18.3% |
||||
|
All Other Operations Items..................... % of Operations Expenditures............. |
$ 34,677 2.6% |
$ 33,995 2.6% |
$ 26,986 1.9% |
||||
|
AWARDS AND GRANTS TOTAL................ % of Total
Expenditures........................ |
$50,700,247 97.4% |
$50,185,161 97.4% |
$57,479,676 97.6% |
||||
|
Cost of Property and Equipment................. |
$ 177,045 |
$ 156,829 |
$ 157,137 |
||||
|
COURT
EXPENDITURES PAID FROM
Judges Salaries paid through
appropriation to the Office of the State
Comptroller........ |
$ 333,366 |
$ 360,493 |
$ 360,574 |
||||
|
SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES |
FY
2007 |
FY
2006 |
FY
2005 |
||||
|
Filing
Fees Collected............................................ |
$9,046 |
$8,010 |
$7,465 |
||||
|
Total
Claims Awarded *...................................... |
6,366 |
5,597 |
5,907 |
||||
|
Total Claims Denied *......................................... |
3,146 |
2,482 |
2,538 |
||||
|
Total Claims Dismissed *..................................... * - not examined |
730 |
639 |
863 |
||||
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HEADS
|
|||||||
|
During Engagement Period: Matthew
J. Finnell, Court Administrator Delores
Martin, Director and Deputy Clerk Currently: Matthew J.
Finnell, Court Administrator Delores Martin,
Director and Deputy Clerk |
|||||||
|
Attendance records were
incomplete
Errors were noted
in accrual of vacation and personal time Required
Compensated Absence report not filed with State Comptroller
Employee performance
evaluations were not conducted
Court officials
agree with the auditors recommendations
Receipts were not
recorded or incorrectly recorded in Court records Posting error was
not detected by Court
|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS NEED TO IMPROVE CONTROLS OVER PERSONAL SERVICES Court officials did not fully address known deficiencies over personal services despite recurring findings. During our testing, we noted the following: · In the previous three compliance reports for fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005 it was identified the Court did not prepare and maintain attendance records, including the amount of sick and vacation leave used or accrued for three of five employees. During the current engagement testing the Court did not provide any attendance records, including the amount of sick and vacation leave used or accrued leave balances, for one employee. · The accrued vacation balance of one employee was overstated as of June 30, 2007 and 2006. In addition, the same employee used personal leave in fiscal year 2006 in excess of the maximum personal leave allowed. These exceptions occurred because of incorrect posting of used vacation hours in the vacation ledger. · The Court did not prepare and submit the required fiscal years 2007 and 2006 Compensated Absences (SCO-580) reports to the Office of the State Comptroller. The Court has not submitted the Compensated Absence report to the Office of the State Comptroller since fiscal year 2000. ·
The Court did not conduct or document performance
evaluations of the five full-time employees.
Court officials stated the incorrect vacation and sick time
balances were due to record keeping oversight. Court officials also stated the other weaknesses noted above were
due to higher priorities. (Finding 2,
Pages 11-13) This finding has been repeated since 1999. We recommended the Court strengthen controls over personal services. Specifically, we recommended the Court: · Timely prepare and maintain attendance records for all employees. · The employee(s) responsible for the maintenance of the employee accrued vacation and sick time records take extra precaution to ensure the accuracy of the records and the Court implement a procedure to have someone review the accrued leave balances for accuracy of postings on a regular basis. · Annually prepare and submit the Compensated Absence report to the Office of the State Comptroller. · Perform employee performance evaluations in accordance with the Court’s Personnel Rules. Court officials agreed with the recommendations and stated they have brought the time keeping records of all of its full-time employees up to date. In addition, Court officials responded they will be filing the compensated absence report annually. Court officials further stated they will soon complete employee performance evaluations and will more fully address this issue as the Court updates their personnel policies and procedures. (For previous Court response, see Digest footnote #1.) Inadequate
reconciliations of receipt and expenditure records to STATE Comptroller’s
reports The Court did not properly reconcile their receipt records with the Office of the State Comptroller’s Monthly Revenue Status Report (SB04) for all months during the two years ending June 30, 2007. In addition, we noted the Court did not perform the required reconciliation of their monthly expenditure records to the Office of the State Comptroller’s Monthly Appropriation Status Report (SB01), from December 2006 through March 2007. Specifically, we identified the following exceptions: · Receipts totaling $59,588 in fiscal year 2007 were not recorded in the Court’s receipts ledger but were deposited with the State Treasury and recorded by the State Comptroller. · Prior year refunds totaling $23,407 in fiscal year 2007 and $3,042 in fiscal year 2006 were incorrectly recorded and coded in Receipt and Deposit Transmittal forms as current year refunds. · A prior year refund of $3,502 in fiscal year 2007 was recorded by the State Comptroller as a current year refund instead of prior year refund. · Current year refunds totaling $836 in fiscal year 2007 and $297 in fiscal year 2006 were incorrectly recorded by the Court as prior year refunds. · A $2,200 posting error was identified in testing personal services expenditures. It was later determined the $2,200 error was due to an input error in the Court’s expenditure ledger. Court officials indicated the recording and posting errors happened as a result of human error. Court officials also indicated those months where no expenditure reconciliation was performed were due to staff oversight. (Finding 5, Pages 18-19) We recommended the Court refer to the Office of the State Comptroller’s SAMS manual for guidance on performing reconciliations and perform the reconciliations timely each month as required. Court officials agreed with the recommendation and indicated the staff person who kept the receipts log during the engagement period is now more familiar with the process. In addition, the Court officials agreed to follow the Office of the State Comptroller’s SAMS manual in performing the reconciliations of the transactions as was recommended. OTHER
FINDINGS The remaining findings are reportedly being given attention by the Court. We will review the Court’s progress toward the implementation of our recommendations in our next engagement.
ACCOUNTANTS’
REPORT
We conducted a compliance examination of the Court as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. The Accountants’ Report noted the Court did not comply in all material respects with the requirements regarding laws and regulations, including the State uniform accounting system, in its financial and fiscal operations. ____________________________________ WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General WGH:RPU:pp SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS E.C. Ortiz & Co., LLP were our special assistant auditors for this engagement. DIGEST
FOOTNOTE #1 MANAGEMENT FAILURE TO FULLY ADDRESS KNOWN
DEFICIENCIES OVER PERSONAL SERVICES – Previous Court Response
2005: The Court generally agrees with the finding and concurs in the recommendation. Before the audit was concluded the Court believes it brought the records of four of its five employees in compliance. The Court has a plan for bringing the remaining employee’s records into compliance with the recommendation and expects to have it done during the next several weeks. Once all of the employees’ records are brought into compliance then the Court will be able to provide a complete and accurate year end accruals for the SCO-580 report to the Comptroller’s Office. |