|
Excess transfers of
$4,561,000 were made to GRF
$3,153,000 in
excess transfers from Tourism Promotion Fund
$1,408,000 in
excess transfers from Coal Technology Development Fund
Contracts were not
always executed timely
Services often
began before interagency agreements were executed
Some contracts were
filed late with the Comptroller’s Office
Timesheets are not
maintained for all employees
Several items were
missing from tourism certification and funding applications
Grant applicants
were not notified of their certification application status
The Department did
not always notify tourism grant applicants whether their application was
complete
The Department
failed to assist and encourage employers to reemploy employees
List of employees in
Department training programs was not provided to employers
Progress
made in implementing 7 of the 8 recommendations examined
Structured
process to review performance measures implemented
Procedures
implemented to ensure performance measures are calculated correctly
Controls
implemented to ensure grant recipient reports are monitored
Coal
Development Board not staffed
|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
TRANSFERS TO GENERAL REVENUE FUND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW
Transfers were made to the General Revenue Fund (GRF)
totaling $4,561,000 in fiscal year 2006 from the Tourism Promotion Fund and
the Coal Technology Development Assistance Fund which were not in accordance
with State law.
Public Act 94-839 (30 ILCS 105/8h) states, “The total
transfer under this Section from any fund in any fiscal year shall not exceed
the lesser of (i) 8% of the revenues to be deposited into the fund during
that fiscal year or (ii) an amount that leaves a remaining fund balance of
25% of the July 1 fund balance of that fiscal year.”
For these two funds, 8% of the revenues was less than 25% of
the July 1 fund balance, so the revenue calculation was used. However, the revenues for the calculation
included interfund transfers, which are not revenues. NCGA Statement 1 – Governmental Accounting
and Financial Reporting Principles, paragraph 109 states, “The term
“revenues” means increases in (sources of) fund financial resources other
than from interfund transfers” (emphasis added).
The
Department included all $43,671,000 of interfund transfers into the Tourism
Promotion Fund as revenue, therefore all $3,153,000 in transfers to GRF were
excess transfers. The Department
included $17,207,000 of interfund transfers into the Coal Technology
Development Fund as revenue. Actual
revenues were $5,199,000. Therefore
$1,408,000 of transfers from this fund to GRF were excess transfers. (Finding 1, pages 11-12)
We recommended the Department work with Governor’s Office of
Management and Budget (GOMB) to return these transfers to the Tourism
Promotion Fund and the Coal Technology Development Assistance Fund. Further, the Department should work with
GOMB to ensure future transfers do not violate State law.
Department management accepted our recommendations and stated
they would work with GOMB to address the finding and take appropriate action.
CONTRACTS AND INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS NOT TIMELY EXECUTED AND NOT
TIMELY FILED WITH THE ILLINOIS OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
The Department did not execute contracts with vendors and
interagency agreements with other State agencies in a timely manner. Also, the Department did not timely file
contracts with the Illinois Office of the Comptroller.
We noted 19 of 60 (31.7%) contracts tested totaling
$6,621,994 that were not executed prior to the commencement of services. Professional and Artistic affidavits were
filed for 15 of these contracts.
We reviewed 9 of the 34 interagency agreements (26.5%)
totaling $4,150,087 and noted services began prior to the completion of an
executed agreement for 5 of the 9 (55.6%) agreements tested. Additionally, we could not determine
whether 1 of the 9 (11.1%) agreements was executed in a timely manner because
the signed interagency agreement was not dated.
For 7 of the 60 (11.7%) contracts tested Late Filing
Affidavits were filed with the Comptroller.
While the Procurement Code permits the use of affidavits to justify
non |
