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
the Courtís appropriation)
...................

††††††††††††† 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
 
OTHER SOURCES

††††††††† 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 Courtís 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 Comptrollerís reports

 

†††† The Court did not properly reconcile their receipt records with the Office of the State Comptrollerís 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 Comptrollerís 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 Courtís 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 Courtís 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 Comptrollerís 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 Comptrollerís 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 Courtís progress toward the implementation of our recommendations in our next engagement.

†††††

ACCOUNTANTSí REPORT

 

††††† We conducted a compliance examination of the Court as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act.The Accountantsí 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 Ė 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 employeeís records into compliance with the recommendation and expects to have it done during the next several weeks.Once all of the employeesí 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 Comptrollerís Office.