REPORT DIGEST

 

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

 

COMPLIANCE AUDIT

For the Two Years Ended:

June 30, 2003

 

Summary of Findings:

 

Total this audit                      3

Total last audit                      2

Repeated from last audit       1

 

Release Date:

March 30, 2004

 

 

 

 

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 TDD (217) 524-4646

 

 

This Report Digest is also available on

the worldwide web at

http://www.state.il.us/auditor

 

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS

 
  • The Board failed to reimburse counties for amounts paid to compensate election judges per the Election Code.

     
  • The Board failed to identify the gross receipts, expenses, and net proceeds relating specifically to raffles as required by the Raffles Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{Expenditures and Activity Measures are summarized on the reverse page.}

 

   STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

 

           COMPLIANCE AUDIT

For The Two Years Ended June 30, 2003

 

EXPENDITURE STATISTICS

FY 2003

FY 2002

FY 2001

! Total Expenditures (All Funds)

$7,185,280

$7,322,860

$7,965,439

OPERATIONS TOTAL

% of Total Expenditures

$4,668,297

65%

$4,747,761

65%

$4,381,092

55%

Personal Services

% of Operations Expenditures

Average No. of Employees

$2,977,826

64%

57

$2,952,987

62%

64

$2,844,851

65%

60

Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)

% of Operations Expenditures

$634,128

13%

$630,207

13%

$600,052

14%

Contractual Services

% of Operations Expenditures

$780,008

17%

$832,957

18%

$558,147

13%

All Other Operations Items

% of Operations Expenditures

$276,335

6%

$331,610

7%

$378,042

8%

GRANTS TOTAL

% of Total Expenditures

$2,516,983

35%

$2,575,099

35%

$3,584,347

45%

! Cost of Property and Equipment

$1,088,044

$1,030,007

$1,033,329

SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES

 

 

 

ELECTIONS DIVISION

FY 2003

FY 2002

FY 2001

  • Number of election judge schools requested

  • Number of election jurisdictions submitting voter registration database files

  • Number of nominating petitions filed

  • Number of petition objections filed

  • Number of petition copy requests received

  • Number of election publications requested

155

 

477

73

0

1

43,056

58

 

324

969

170

997

27,229

153

 

216

85

13

5

18,475

CAMPAIGN FINANCING DIVISION

FY 2003

FY 2002

FY 2001

  • Number of semi-annual campaign disclosure reports required to be filed (estimated)

  • Number of raffle applications submitted for approval by political committees

  • Number of raffle applications approved

  • Number of financial disclosure reports reviewed by operations staff

  • Number of report amendments filed pursuant to the operational review process

 

6,700

 

329

323

 

6,655

 

1,182

 

6,600

 

328

328

 

6,387

 

703

 

6,000

 

350

350

 

6,654

 

879

BOARD DIRECTOR(S)

During Audit Period: Dr. Ronald D. Michaelson (through 6/30/03)

Currently: Daniel W. White

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The unreimbursed amount required by the Election Code totaled $1.491 million

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Currently, there is no reporting mechanism at the Board to obtain information specific to raffles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

THE BOARD FAILED TO REIMBURSE COUNTIES FOR COMPENSATION OF ELECTION JUDGES REQUIRED BY THE ELECTION CODE

The State Board of Elections failed to reimburse counties for amounts paid to election judges as required by the Election Code.

Counties paid election judges for services provided for the general election on November 5, 2002, for the consolidated primary election on February 25, 2003 and for the consolidated election on April 1, 2003. The Board reimbursed a portion of the compensation to the counties totaling $1.364 million in FY03. The remaining unreimbursed amount needed for FY03 elections totaled $1.491 million.

Board officials stated they did not reimburse counties as required due to a lack of appropriations.

Failure to reimburse each county for the amount the county paid to compensate election judges is noncompliance with the Election Code. (Finding 1, Page 8)

We recommended the Board comply with the Election Code or seek legislative assistance regarding the compensation of election judges.

Board officials agreed with our recommendation and stated they are continuing to discuss this issue with both the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget and legislative staffs.

 

NEED TO COMPLY WITH RAFFLES ACT IN THE COLLECTION OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING RAFFLES

The State Board of Elections failed to properly report all receipts and disbursements for raffles benefiting political campaigns.

The current campaign disclosure report used by the Board does not specifically identify the gross receipts, expenses and net proceeds relating specifically to raffles.

The campaign disclosure form reports the total receipts and disbursements of a political committee, but there is no way to differentiate receipts related to raffles. Currently, there is no reporting mechanism at the Board to obtain information specific to raffles.

Failure to report gross receipts, expenses, and net proceeds from raffles is noncompliance with the Raffles Act. The Raffles Act (230 ILCS 15/8.1) requires political committees licensed to conduct raffles to report the gross receipts, expenses and net proceeds from the raffles to the Board. Furthermore, the distribution of proceeds are required to be itemized as to payee, purpose, amount and date of payment by the political committee. (Finding 3, Page 10)

We recommended the Board comply with the Raffles Act in the collection of specific information relating to raffles or seek legislative remedy regarding the current statutory requirement.

Board officials disagreed with the finding and recommendation. The Board’s opinion is that revenue generated by a raffle should be reported within the context of the Campaign Disclosure Act, which requires the itemization of any receipt or expenditure in the aggregate that exceeds $150. The Board believes the Raffles Act does not require gross and net amounts reported in the manner stipulated in the finding.

In an auditor’s comment, we noted that Section 8.1 of the Raffles Act requires each political committee licensed to conduct raffles and chances to "keep records of its gross receipts, expenses and net proceeds for each single gathering or occasion at which winning chances are determined (emphasis added)." The campaign disclosure reports routinely filed with the Board do not contain this information. If the Board continues to disagree with the auditor’s interpretation of the law, it should seek a formal written opinion from the Attorney General’s Office to definitively determine its statutory responsibilities.

 

OTHER FINDING

The remaining finding is less significant and is reportedly being given attention by the Board. We will review the Board's progress towards implementation of our recommendations in our next compliance audit.

The Board’s response was provided by Executive Director, Mr. Daniel White.

 

AUDITOR’S OPINION

We conducted a compliance audit of the State Board of Elections as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. We have not audited any financial statements of the Board for the purpose of expressing an opinion, because the agency does not, nor is it required to, prepare financial statements.

 

______________________________________

WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General

WGH:CML:pp

AUDITORS ASSIGNED

The audit was conducted by the Auditor General’s staff.