|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE BILLINGS FROM IMPROPER
LINE ITEM APPROPRIATIONS
The
Department made payments for efficiency initiative billings from improper
line item appropriations. Public Act
93-0025, in part, outlines a program for efficiency initiatives to
reorganize, restructure, and reengineer the business processes of the
State. The State Finance Act details
that the amount designated as savings from efficiency initiatives implemented
by the Department of Central Management Services (CMS) shall be paid into the
Efficiency Initiatives Revolving Fund.
The Act further requires State agencies to pay these amounts from line
item appropriations where cost savings are anticipated to occur.
The
Department did not receive guidance or documentation with the billings from
CMS detailing from which line item appropriations savings were anticipated to
occur. According to Department staff,
they received no documentation or information from CMS detailing the nature
and/or type of savings that CMS anticipated.
The only guidance received was the amount of payments that should be
taken from General Revenue Funds versus other funds for the September 2003
billings.
The
Department did not make payments for billings from line item appropriations
where the cost savings were anticipated to have occurred. During FY04, the Department received three
billings totaling $4,176,774 from CMS for savings from efficiency
initiatives. The Department prorated
the amounts evenly across all non-federal and unrestricted federal funds,
including those in lump sum accounts. The Department paid $3,562,174 for efficiency initiatives from
the following:
·
$2,702,700 from its personal services, employer paid
retirement, contributions to SERS, contributions to Social Security,
contractual services, travel, commodities, equipment, EDP, telecommunication,
operation of auto and lump sum and other operational purposes line item
appropriations to pay for the Procurement Efficiency billing.
·
$587,675 from its lump sum and other operation
purposes line item appropriation to pay for the Vehicle Fleet Management
billing.
·
$271,799 from its personal services, employer paid
retirement, contributions to SERS, contributions to Social Security and group
insurance line item appropriations to pay for the Information Technology
billing.
Efficiency
initiative payments were also made from two license and stamp funds which
could be considered an illegal diversion of license revenues under federal
law. To be eligible for these federal
funds, the State had to pass assent legislation to assure the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) there would be no diversion of fish and wildlife
license revenues. Diversion of these
funds through efficiency initiative payments could invalidate past and future
funding from the USFWS. (Finding 1,
pages 12-15)
We
recommended the Department only make payments for efficiency initiative
billings from line item appropriations where savings would be anticipated to
occur. Further, we recommended the
Department seek an explanation from the Department of Central Management
Services as to how savings levels were calculated, or otherwise determined,
and how savings achieved or anticipated impact the Agency’s budget.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated they will make savings payments from appropriation lines for which
they obtain savings.
INADEQUATE PREPARATION OF YEAR END ACCOUNTING REPORTS
The Department's preparation and submission of year end
accounting reports (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GAAP Package
Forms) to the Office of the State Comptroller were not performed in an
accurate manner. We noted:
·
Five adjustments totaling over $4 million were
required to agree GAAP reporting packages to actual expenditures.
·
Significant changes were required for 10 federal
programs. Revisions were needed for
receipts, expenditures, receivables, deferred revenues and subrecipient
amounts.
·
The Department used incorrect rates when calculating
salary related costs to prepare the Compensated Absences Form (SCO 580).
·
The Statewide Accounting Management System (SAMS) to
GAAP reconciliation – capital assets (SCO 537) and the Capital Asset Summary
(SCO 538) were prepared incorrectly.
·
The Department had inadequate procedures to identify
liabilities for capital projects and land acquisition costs payable to local
governments from reappropriated accounts.
(Finding 2, pages 16-18) This
finding was first reported in 2000.
We recommended the Department implement procedures to ensure
year end accounting reports are prepared in an accurate and complete
manner. We further recommended the
Department review and revise, as necessary, its current system of gathering
programmatic expenditure information to improve the accuracy of its financial
reporting, as well as devote sufficient personnel to the task.
Department officials disagreed with our recommendation and
stated management must make informed estimates of the final figures since the
GAAP packages are due in many instances prior to the availability of final
financial data. Management also stated
that until the time issue is addressed, GAAP packages will always require
adjusting entries, many of which may be substantial. (For previous Department Response, see
Digest Footnote #1.)
In an auditor’s comment we noted this is a repeat finding and
that in the prior audit, we noted similar problems with a failure to timely
and accurately prepare the Department’s GAAP packages and identify
liabilities. Nevertheless, we found
similar problems in the current audit.
Making informed estimates takes planning, effort and resources. The Department also had two years to deal
with its capital asset issues and liabilities issue and neither was resolved
in this audit. The proper use of its
Programmatic Accounting System noted in finding 04-9 would help the accuracy
of the Department’s GAAP forms submitted to the Office of the State
Comptroller.
INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER THE CALCULATION AND SUBMISSION OF CAPITAL
ASSET INFORMATION FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING PURPOSES
The Department’s preparation and submission of year end
accounting reports (GAAP Package Forms) to the Office of the State
Comptroller related to the capital asset account were not prepared
accurately, causing financial reporting delays. We noted the following problems with the Department’s Statewide
Accounting Management System to GAAP Reconciliation – Capital Assets (SCO
537) and the Capital Asset Summary (SCO 538) submitted to the State
Comptroller:
·
The Department had not agreed the June 30, 2002
ending recalculations with the Common Inventory System (CIS) as of June 30,
2004 although this had been noted in the prior audit.
·
Due to the incompleteness of CIS records, the
Department did not obtain ending balances for each capitalization category
from property control records.
Without these amounts, it cannot be determined if ending balances are
reasonably stated.
·
Accumulated depreciation was calculated incorrectly
and individual transaction amounts were not substantiated.
·
The Department calculated additions based upon
expenditure amounts, and did not reconcile these additions to the CIS system
transactions for the year.
·
The Department calculated deletions and transfers
based upon CIS activity. These
amounts are overstated due to the manner in which the Department makes
adjustments on the CIS system.
·
The Department did not consistently record historical
treasures, works of art and other collections in their records.
·
The Department did not include Department of
Transportation managed projects, totaling approximately $26 million, related
to bikeways on its property control records.
·
The Department did not include Capital Development
Board (CDB) managed state-wide projects, totaling approximately $900,000 on
its property control records.
·
The Department did not include Office of Water Resources
sites, totaling approximately $37 million, on its property control
records.
·
The Department prepared the SCO 537 based upon
incorrect quarterly reports (C-15’s) amounts. All quarterly reports prepared during the examination period
were prepared incorrectly.
·
Due to the complexity of the above issues, revised
amounts related to capital assets and accumulated depreciations were not
available until January 12, 2005.
(Finding 3, pages 19-21)
We recommended the Department implement procedures
to ensure capital assets are reported in an accurate, complete and timely
manner and reconcile the Common Inventory System to capital asset reporting
amounts to ensure the property control system can be utilized for capital
asset reporting. We further
recommended the Department review and revise, as necessary, its current
system of gathering property control information to improve the accuracy of
the Common Inventory System records and devote necessary personnel to these
tasks.
Department
officials agreed with our recommendation and stated they will continue to
pursue solutions to the 30-odd years of previous management staff’s
questionable practices for capital asset recording, the Capital Development
Board’s misclassification of capital assets in its transfer reports and the
Common Inventory System’s inability to provide reports on capital assets that
do not require further analysis by Department staff.
In an auditor’s comment we noted the Department did not
devote sufficient time and resources to properly address GASB 34 when it
first became effective in fiscal year 2002 which exacerbated the problem on a
go forward basis. We also noted the
Department is ultimately responsible for reviewing the information obtained
from other State agencies and ensuring the information is properly classified
and reported.
INACCURATE PROPERTY CONTROL RECORDS
The Department did not maintain accurate
property control records over its property and equipment totaling in excess
of $1.035 billion at June 30, 2004.
We noted the following:
·
Five items were not
properly tagged with a Department property control tag, five items were
located at sites, but were not listed on the property control records, three
items appeared obsolete or unusable, but still maintained on property control
listings, and three items could not be located during our testing.
·
Inconsistencies in
the manner the Department accounted for historical treasures, works of art
and other collections.
·
All quarterly
reports filed with the Office of the Comptroller were inaccurate. (Finding 4, pages 22-23) This finding was first reported in 2002.
We recommended the Department remind
employees of its property control procedures to ensure that such procedures
are followed and that property control
supervisors be
held responsible for accurate and complete property control records.
Department officials agreed with our
recommendation and stated they will remind all employees of property control
and capital asset reporting responsibilities. (For previous
Department Response, see Digest Footnote #2.)
FAILURE
TO MAINTAIN ACCURATE COMMODITY INVENTORY RECORDS FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING
PURPOSES
The Department did not maintain accurate
and complete commodity inventory records for financial reporting purposes in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
During our review of fiscal year 2004
GAAP package submissions to the Office of the State Comptroller, we noted the
Department did not record the value of paper or printed publications for sale
as inventories and erroneously included postage amounts as commodity
inventories rather than as pre-paid postage.
We recommended the Department maintain a record of all
printed material for sale as part of its commodity inventories and properly
record and classify amounts on year end GAAP package submissions for
financial reporting. (Finding 5,
pages 24-25) This finding was
first reported in 2002.
Department officials partially agreed with our recommendation
and acknowledged that although the inventories were not included in their
GAAP reports, these items were counted and valued. (For previous Department Response, see Digest Footnote #3.)
In an auditor’s comment we noted this is a repeat
finding. In the prior audit, we noted
the same issue that the Department did not maintain accurate and complete
commodity inventory records for GAAP reporting purposes. It is not the auditors’ responsibility to
gather this information and post it to GAAP reporting packages submitted to
the Office of the State Comptroller.
FAILURE
TO CONSISTENTLY USE PROGRAMMATIC ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
The Department failed to consistently use its Programmatic
Accounting System (PAS) as outlined in its policies and procedures related to
federal aid coordination. We noted
the following:
·
The Office of Land Management did not properly use
PAS to record all expenditures related to Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) declared disaster areas at State Parks. The Department failed to capture costs related to vendor
payments and employees’ timesheets related to a disaster. Initially, FEMA inspectors estimated
disaster repairs to be $122,827, but PAS only captured $63,992 in costs
associated with the repairs. The
Department is unable to seek reimbursement in excess of $63,992 due to the
lack of information entered on PAS documenting actual work completed at
various sites.
·
The Office of Land Management (OLM) did not properly
use PAS to record all expenditures related to its Agriculture Lease
program. Because the majority of
expenditures had not been properly recorded on PAS, OLM had to separately
accumulate all expenditures for each applicable cost center, match the list
of centers with a list of eligible federal aid sites, and determine total
expenditures. (Finding 9, pages
30-31)
We recommended the Department educate field staff of policies
and procedures regarding the Programmatic Accounting System and enforce these
procedures to ensure all applicable costs are captured for the federal
reporting process.
Department officials generally agreed with the recommendation
that the Office of Land Management did not consistently use PAS, but did not
believe this caused the loss of federal reimbursements. Department officials also stated the Agriculture
Lease program is not a federal program.
In an auditor’s comment we noted the Department’s policies
and procedures require the Department to use the PAS system for billings for
federal programs. Since the
Department did not consistently follow their own policies and procedures, the
auditors were unable to determine if all time was captured and claimed. The issue with FEMA was one example of
this problem. In addition, although
the Agriculture Lease Program is not a federal program, the Department is
required to report all Agriculture Lease Program expenditures to the federal
government for all sites purchased with federal funds, and we still contend
PAS should be used to properly accumulate this information.
TIMEKEEPING SYSTEM IS NOT AUTOMATED
The Department-wide timekeeping system is not automated,
resulting in inefficiencies and errors in accurately calculating employee
accumulated leave. The Department
employs over 1,800 employees and each division within the Department
maintains a manual timekeeping system.
We noted the following weaknesses:
·
The Department calculated accrued leave incorrectly
for 11 of 60 (18%) employees selected for testing. One of these errors resulted in accrued vacation being
overstated at the end of the month by 19 hours for an individual.
·
The Department’s timekeeping process is not universal
throughout the Department. The
Division of Mines and Minerals uses the CMS Timekeeping System and the
Illinois Waste Management Resource Center and the Illinois State Water Survey
have their own timekeeping systems; however, most of the divisions use the
DNR Manual Timekeeping System which is paper intensive allowing for human
errors. (Finding 12, pages
36-37) This finding was first
reported in 2000.
We recommended the Department implement an
automated timekeeping system to strengthen internal controls and eliminate
the multiple timekeeping systems currently used by the Department.
Department officials partially agreed with our
recommendation. Department officials
stated they are not aware of any authoritative State requirement to implement
an automated timekeeping system; however, they will seek to make available to
timekeepers currently owned and licensed software that can minimize
calculation errors. (For previous
Department Response, see Digest Footnote #4.)
In an auditor’s comment, we noted this is a repeat finding
and that in the prior audit we noted the same issues with the Department
being unable to properly calculate accrued leave and incurring a large number
of manual errors. The Department
agreed with our prior recommendation to implement an automated system. We again emphasize that due to the size
and decentralization of the Department and the continued errors noted, it
would be prudent business practices to implement an automated timekeeping system,
even as simple as a spreadsheet or database system.
INADEQUATE PROCEDURES REGARDING STATE VEHICLES
The Department did not have adequate controls over its State
vehicles. We noted the following:
·
4 of 60 personally assigned vehicles were not approved
in writing by the Director as required;
·
A regular review of vehicle assignments to determine
whether the assignments are in the best interest of the State did not occur;
·
4 of 264 employees reported driving their assigned
vehicle less than 1,000 miles during a three-month period. Personally assigned vehicles were not
evaluated annually to determine the assignment was still justifiable and in
the best interest of the State;
·
1 out of 10 employees did not effectively utilize the
Department’s vehicle fleet. This
traveler was approved to use his personal vehicle for 7,810 miles, resulting
in reimbursement totaling $2,851;
·
12 out of 117 accidents involving State vehicles were
not reported in a timely manner. The
reports were submitted between 1 and 124 days late;
·
Odometer readings were not maintained; and
·
Documentation to ensure personally assigned vehicles
were adequately maintained was not readily available. (Finding 15, pages
41-44) This finding was first
reported in 2002.
We recommended the Department strengthen its controls
regarding State vehicles for the items noted.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department’s Offices of Administration and Fiscal Management will
co-lead an initiative to reenergize and further enhance the evaluations of
the Department’s vehicle fleet management which were initially completed in
2003 and implement as many of the recommendations as is determined viable
within existing resources. (For
previous Department Response, see Digest Footnote #5.)
INADEQUATE
CONTROLS OVER TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPENDITURES AND RECORDS
The
Department did not maintain adequate controls over processes related to
telecommunications equipment and expenditure records. We noted the following:
·
The Department failed to maintain records of phone
calls for fiscal year 2003 and the Department is currently unable to access
electronic back ups of the information.
·
The Department did not require supervisors to
adequately review and verify a monthly itemized listing of local and long
distance calls. 10 of 25 calls
selected were not approved in writing by the supervisor.
·
Telecommunication records are not updated for changes
in assignments of equipment, such as cell phones and pagers. We noted 6 instances where cell phones or
pagers were either lost, unnecessary or not currently used by the persons
listed by the Telecommunications Coordinator. (Finding 18, pages 48-49)
This finding was first reported in 2002. This finding is revised from the previous finding.
We recommended the Department modify the record
retention policy to ensure all required information is properly retained and
available for review. Also, the
Department should document its review of telecommunications charges and phone
calls and insure such review is performed in a consistent manner throughout
the Department. We further
recommended the Department incorporate specific documentation procedures in
the Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Offices of Administration and Fiscal Management will collaborate
on an extensive and exhaustive review of the Department’s telecommunications
functions as a whole and will develop and implement policies and procedures
as well as modify pertinent existing procedures to achieve an adequate level
of management control to the extent possible within existing resources. (For previous Department Response, see
Digest Footnote #6.)
TELEPHONE
CALLING CARDS NOT CANCELLED ON A TIMELY BASIS
The Department did not cancel telephone calling cards in a
timely manner when use of the calling card was not justified. We noted 3 of 25 (12%) calling cards
assigned to individuals were not cancelled when the employee’s use of the
calling card was no longer necessary.
(Finding 19, page 50) This
finding was first reported in 2002.
We recommended the Department implement procedures to cancel
all telephone calling cards immediately when an employee no longer needs the
calling card.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated they will reevaluate their need for telephone calling cards and will
promptly cancel all cards of former
employees as well as all
calling cards. (For previous
Department Response, see Digest Footnote #7.)
STATE
POLICE TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLANNING SYSTEM (TIPS) NOT UPDATED IN A TIMELY
MANNER
The Department did not enter citations and written warnings
issued by Conservation Police Officers (CPO) into the TIPS in a timely
manner. We noted that as of November
12, 2004, citations dated June 1, 2004 to present were not entered into
TIPS. Also written warnings dated
from July 1999 to present were not entered into TIPS. (Finding 21, pages 53-54) This finding was first reported in
2002.
We recommended the Department enter all past and future
tickets and written warnings issued by CPO’s into TIPS in a timely manner.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated the Department has now made substantial progress in addressing the
back-log and believes they will be reasonably current in the near
future. (For previous Department
Response, see Digest Footnote #8.)
INADEQUATE
CONTROLS OVER PETTY CASH FUNDS
The Department did not ensure adequate controls were
implemented in the management of its petty cash funds and in accordance with
State Comptroller requirements (SAMS Procedures 9.10.40). We tested 15 of the Department’s
approximate 190 petty cash funds maintained in Springfield and at sites throughout
the State and noted the following:
·
The Department did not ensure the authorized amounts
assigned to each petty cash fund were turning over approximately six times a
year. We noted that 8 out of the 15
(53%) funds tested had annual turnover rates for the year that ranged from
0.836 to 4.8. We also noted 1 of the
15 (7%) funds did not submit an annual petty cash turnover report for the
year ended 12/31/02.
·
The Department did not conduct monthly
reconciliations in 3 out of 15 of their petty cash funds tested. We noted 3 out of the 15 (20%) funds
tested did not have petty cash reconciliations performed every month. One fund was not reconciled for 7 months
from 7/1/02 to 1/31/03. Another petty
cash fund was not reconciled for the month of March 2003. Also, 4 out of the 15 (27%) funds were
reconciled by the Custodian. (Finding
28, pages 58-59)
We
recommended the Department comply with SAMS procedure 9.10.40 and implement
controls to ensure petty cash funds’ authorized amounts result in annual
turnover rates of approximately six or document within the Petty Cash
Turnover Report submission why the current level of the Fund is
necessary. We also recommended the
Department implement controls to ensure petty cash funds are reconciled on a
monthly basis by individuals other than the Custodian.
Department
officials disagreed with our recommendation and stated the low turnover rates
are historically characteristic of the Department’s petty cash funds due to
the nature of the Department’s programs, particularly seasonality and, the
remoteness of many petty cash fund locations. Department officials also contend the Comptroller is aware of
this issue and provided tacit approval.
In an
auditor’s comment we stated the Department’s response that low turnover is
due to seasonality and remoteness of petty cash fund locations is
inaccurate. All 8 funds noted were
maintained at the Central Office.
There does not appear to have been any effort to evaluate these funds’
usage once the Department was consolidated into the new building. In addition, the Department did not
document on the Petty Cash Turnover Report submission their reasoning why the
current funding level of the petty cash funds was necessary. Lastly, the Department did not address our
recommendation to ensure petty cash funds are reconciled on a monthly basis
by an individual other than the custodian.
REPORTS
NOT SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The Department did not prepare and file annual progress
reports on the implementation of the Open Space Lands Acquisition and
Development Act. The reports due for
fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were not submitted at all. The most recent report was submitted for
fiscal year 2001. (Finding 26, page
60) This finding was first
reported in 2000. The current finding
is revised from the previous finding.
We recommended the Department comply with the Open Space
Lands Acquisition and Development Act by preparing and submitting required
annual reports to the Governor and General Assembly.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated they will reexamine the statute to verify the requirements and prepare
an annual report as soon as fiscal year ending data is available for fiscal
year 2005 and each year thereafter. (For
previous Department Response, see Digest Footnote #9.)
WEAKNESSES
IN ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE REPORTING
The
Department did not submit quarterly accounts receivable reports to the Office
of the State Comptroller in a timely manner.
In addition, the Department did not maintain a formal quarterly aging
schedule for accounts receivable. We
noted the following:
·
The Department is required to submit 4 separate
accounts receivable reports (Forms C-97, C-98, C-99, and C-99A) no later than
the last day of the month following the end of the quarter to the Office of
the State Comptroller. These reports
were submitted late 4 of the 8 quarters (50%) during the audit period. In addition, another quarter was submitted
after the initial due date, but with an extension granted by the
Comptroller’s Office. The reports
were submitted from 1 to 21 days late, averaging 5.3 days late.
·
The Department’s Fiscal Office did not maintain
centralized records supporting accounts receivable and aged accounts
receivables submitted to the Comptroller.
(Finding 28, pages 62-63)
We recommended the
Department implement procedures to file all required accounts receivable
reports with the Office of the State Comptroller in a timely manner as
required by SAMS. Further, the
Department should maintain a current aging schedule of accounts receivable
for each quarter of the fiscal year.
Department officials
disagreed with our recommendation and stated the information cited in the
finding failed to consider whether or not extensions of time to file had been
granted. The Department also feels
the due dates established by the Office of the Comptroller are
arbitrary. In addition, the
Department contends they do have files of records supporting its receivable
reports from the Division where they originate. Lastly, the Department contended the collectibility estimate is
of use to the Department only at year end.
In an auditor’s comment
we noted we did consider extensions and added suggested language to the first
bullet of the finding addressing the extension. No other documentation was given to the auditors noting any
other extensions. It is the Fiscal
Office’s responsibility to file accounts receivable reports with the
Comptroller and to maintain all necessary support for the information on the
forms. The Department’s audit liaison
did not provide documentation to support the Department’s accounts
receivables numbers, and it is not the auditor’s responsibility to search the
Department to find documentation to support the Department’s accounts
receivable numbers.
NEED TO COMPLY WITH STATE OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEE ETHICS ACT
The Department is not maintaining timesheets for its
employees in compliance with the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act
(Act).
The Act requires the Department to adopt personnel policies
consistent with the Act. The Act (5
ILCS 430/5-5(c)) states, "The policies shall require State employees to
periodically submit timesheets documenting the time spent each day on
official State business to the nearest quarter hour."
We noted the Department's employees (other than senior
management) did not maintain timesheets in compliance with the Act. Department management stated they relied
on advice from the Governor's Office staff which initially stated that
agencies using the Department of Human Services payroll system would be in
compliance with the Act. (Finding 29,
page 64)
We recommended the Department amend its policies to require
all employees maintain timesheets in compliance with the Act.
Department officials agreed with our recommendation and
stated that its Ethics Officer will confirm with the Governor's Office the
actions necessary to fully comply with the Act.
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings are reportedly are being given
attention by the Department. We will
review progress towards the implementation of our recommendations in our next
compliance engagement.
Ms. Ann Sundeen, Chief Fiscal Officer for the Department,
provided the responses.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
We conducted a financial audit of the
Department’s Capital Asset Account for the year ended June 30, 2004 and a
compliance examination of the Department for the two years ended June 30,
2004 as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. Our
special assistant auditors stated that the Department’s capital asset account
as of June 30, 2004 is presented fairly in all in all material respects.
____________________________________
WILLIAM
G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:JSC:pp
AUDITORS ASSIGNED
Our special assistant auditors for this engagement were
Sikich Gardner & Co. LLP.
DIGEST FOOTNOTES
#1 – LACK
OF TIMELY INFORMATION REPORTED AND INADEQUATE PREPARATION OF GAAP PACKAGES –
Previous Department Response
2002: We
concur. During FY 2003 the Department
will establish new methodologies to gather information to improve the
timeliness and accuracy of our financial reporting. These methodologies will specifically address the concerns
identified by the auditors regarding the reporting of capital assets and
payables for capital projects and grants.
The Department also will strive to assign additional personnel to the
preparation of our annual GAAP reports.
#2 - INACCURATE PROPERTY CONTROL RECORDS –
Previous Department Response
2002: We concur. The Department will immediately remind all location supervisors
of the Agency’s property control procedures to ensure that such procedures
are followed and will follow-up on the specific instances noted by the
auditors to ensure that such instances are corrected in FY 2003.
#3 –
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCURATE COMMODITY INVENTORY RECORDS FOR GAAP REPORTING
PURPOSES – Previous Department Response
2002: We concur. The Department will implement procedures to ensure that paper
and printed publications for sale are included in the Agency’s commodities
inventory reported in our GAAP submissions for FY 2003 and future years. In addition, in FY 2003 the Department
will implement procedures to reconcile the delivery of publications shipped
to multiple sites.
#4 –
TIMEKEEPING SYSTEM IS NOT AUTOMATED – Previous Department Response
2002: We concur. The Department will evaluate existing timekeeping systems
available to the Department at minimal cost.
Subject to staffing and funding levels, the Department will work
toward implementing an automated system in calendar year 2004. In the meantime, the Department will
immediately remind all timekeepers and supervisors of their responsibility to
confirm all timesheet calculations prior to signing such documents.
#5 –
INADEQUATE PROCEDURES REGARDING STATE VEHICLES – Previous Department Response
2002: We concur. In accordance with Executive Order #2, 2003, the Department has
initiated a thorough evaluation of our vehicle management processes which
will be completed in March 2003. As
part of this evaluation, we are reviewing all assignments of vehicles to
individual employees to ensure that such assignments are in the best interest
of the State and that documentation of the Director’s approval of vehicle
assignments is retained in Agency files.
#6 –
INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER TELECOMMUNICATIONS EXPENDITURES AND RECORDS –
Previous Department Response
2002: We concur. The Department’s current written procedures requiring
supervisory review of monthly telephone statements will be revised in FY 2003
to incorporate specific documentation procedures for this review
process. In addition, all Department
offices have been reminded of their responsibility to review their monthly
statements to ensure the proper use of the Agency’s telecommunication
resources.
#7 –
TELEPHONE CALLING CARDS NOT CANCELLED ON A TIMELY BASIS – Previous Department
Response
2002: We concur. In January 2003, the Department’s Telephone Coordinator
reviewed the listing of employees with assigned calling cards with each
Agency office to ensure that such cards were cancelled for all employees who
have retired, transferred or left the Department. The Department’s existing written procedures for the
cancellation of calling cards will be revised in FY 2003 to clarify
responsibilities and ensure that in the future these cards are cancelled in a
timely manner. The Department has
reviewed our billing records for the past two years and has confirmed that
the nine calling cards identified by the auditors were not used during this
time period.
#8 – STATE
POLICE TRAFFIC INFORMATION PLANNING SYSTEM (TIPS) NOT UPDATED IN A TIMELY
MANNER – Previous Department Response
2002: We concur. The staff of the Department’s Office of Law Enforcement is
working overtime to enter citations into TIPS and has initiated action to
fill the vacant position assigned responsibility for entering TIPS
information.
#9 –
REPORTS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY INA TIMELY MANNER
– Previous Department Response
2002: We concur. Legislation (P.A. 92-690) was enacted in 2002 which revised the
submission date for future energy assistance and weatherization reports from
March 15 to September 30. This change
will facilitate the collection and analysis of information provided by
utility companies and ensure that future reports are submitted to the
Governor and General Assembly by the statutory due date.
|
