|
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
STUDENT FINANCIAL AID AWARDED TO STUDENTS AT
UNAPPROVED LOCATIONS
The University awarded student financial aid to students at
unapproved locations.
Our testing of the United States Department of Education
Institutional Participation and Oversight Service, Eligibility and
Certification Approval Report disclosed that 7 out of 13 offsite locations,
where the University provides education courses, were not approved prior to
providing services at these locations.
Failure to properly get locations approved by the Department
of Education may jeopardize future federal funding. (Finding 1, page 15)
We recommended the University seek approval from the
Department of Education for any locations where educational programs are
offered, prior to offering classes at these locations.
University officials agreed with the finding and
recommendation and stated that they have since sought and received permission
for these sites.
INAPPROPRIATE CHARGES TO THE SUSBTANCE ABUSE AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES GRANT
The University charged
expenses to its Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services grant that did not
meet the documentation requirements of OMB Circular A-21. It also filed its Financial Status Report
7 days late.
During our testing, we noted
the following items:
·
The University made three journal entries totaling $11,866 to charge
additional costs to the personal services line item of the program. The University did not produce any time
and effort reports or other documentation as required by OMB Circular
A-21. Consequently, we questioned the
entire $11,866.
·
The Financial Status Report was filed 7 days late.
Failure to properly
follow federal grant regulations may jeopardize future federal funding.
(Finding 3, page 17)
We recommended the
University properly adhere to federal regulations and improve its procedures
to ensure that program expenditures are allowable and financial reports are
timely filed.
The University agreed with the
finding. University officials stated
that they would more fully document their indirect charges to grants in the
future.
FAILURE TO FILE CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE
COMPTROLLER
The University did not
file contracts with the State of Illinois, Office of the Comptroller.
Our testing of 25
contractual service expenditures included 15 expenditures having written
contracts, none of which were filed with the State of Illinois, Office of the
Comptroller. (Finding 6, page 20)
We recommended that the
University implement procedures to ensure all contracts over $10,000 are
filed with the State of Illinois, Office of the Comptroller in accordance
with State statutes and guidelines.
The University agreed with
the finding.
TIME SHEETS NOT MAINTAINED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES ETHICS ACT
The University is not
maintaining time sheets for its faculty in compliance with the State
Officials and Employees Ethics Act.
The Act required the
Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE), with respect to State employees of
public universities, to adopt and implement personnel policies. The Act (5 ILCS 430/5-5(c)) states, “The
policies shall require State employees to periodically submit time sheets
documenting the time spent each day on official State business to the nearest
quarter hour.”
Of the 25 employees’ time
sheets that were tested, 7 of them (all faculty members) used the “negative”
timekeeping system whereby the employee is assumed to be working unless noted
otherwise. No time sheets documenting
the time spent each day on official State business to the nearest quarter
hour are maintained for these faculty employees. All other employees tested documented their time to the nearest
quarter hour. (Finding 7, pages
21-22)
We recommended that the
University amend its policies to require all employees to maintain time
sheets in compliance with the Act.
The University disagreed
with this finding. University
officials responded that the Office of the Executive Inspector General had stated
that negative time keeping is appropriate for faculty time reporting.
In an auditor comment we
noted that the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act defines “State
Agency” to include “public institutions of higher learning…” 5 ILCS 430/1-5.
Governors State University is defined as a public institution of “higher
learning” in Section 2 of the Higher Education Cooperation Act…” 110 ILCS
220/2. Further, the State Officials
and Ethics Act defines “State employee” to be “any employee of a State agency.”
5 ILCS 430/1-5.
As noted in the finding, the
State Officials and Employees Ethics Act requires “State employees to
periodically submit time sheets documenting the time spent each day on
official State business to the nearest quarter hour…” 5 ILCS 430/5-5(c). This timekeeping requirement went into
effect March 1, 2004. The negative
timekeeping system used for University faculty requires those employees to
report only time away from State business, not the time spent each day
on State business. Further it
is logical to assume that, by adopting this language, the legislature meant
to effect a change in the method used by State employees to record their time
– that is, to adopt a positive timekeeping system. Finally, the memorandum from the Office of the Executive
Inspector General upon which the University relied in maintaining its
customary negative timekeeping system for faculty employees clearly states
that it “is not a legal opinion.”
We continue to believe that
a positive timekeeping system for State employees is required by the State
Officials and Employees Ethics Act.
If the University disagrees with this conclusion, we further recommend
that it seek a formal, written opinion from the Attorney General’s Office on
the requirements of this statutory provision.
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH STATE PUBLICATION LAWS
The University did not comply with the Illinois Procurement
Code (Code) regarding University publications.
We examined certain University publications (course catalogue
and Spring 2005 class schedule bulletin), and noted that one or more of
certain disclosures (“Printed by authority of the State of Illinois”, date of
publication, the number of copies printed, and the printing order number) as
required by the Code, were not included on each of the items. (Finding 8,
page 23)
We recommended the University follow the requirements of the
Illinois Procurement Code regarding University publications.
The University did not accept this finding. University officials stated that they
believed they were exempt from this statute.
In an auditor comment we noted that Universities are
specifically enumerated as “state agencies” for purposes of the Procurement
Code (30 ILCS 500/1-15.100). Section
20-105 requires all “state agencies” to print certain information on each
publication. This section does not
have an exception for universities, therefore we continue to believe that it
does apply.
If the University continues to disagree with this conclusion,
we recommend that it seek a formal, written opinion from the Attorney
General’s Office on the requirements of this statutory provision.
UNIVERSITY
FACULTY RESEARCH & CONSULTING
The University did not comply with the University Faculty
Research and Consulting Act.
The University’s Office of the President requests all
faculty, who intend to perform outside research and/or consulting services,
to submit a Request for Approval form.
Faculty members who intend to perform outside research and/or
consulting are required to obtain approval from the University President or
the President’s designee before performing outside services.
During our testing we examined all requests that were
submitted and noted that 7 faculty members performed outside research and/or
consulting activities prior to receiving approval from the President. The approvals were noted to be from 7 to
152 days subsequent to the date that services were to begin. In addition, 8 faculty members who
obtained approval to perform research or consulting never submitted an annual
statement to the Provost (President’s designee) stating the actual time spent
on these outside services. (Finding 10, page 26) This finding was first
reported in 2003.
We recommended that the University ensure that faculty
members comply with the University Faculty Research and Consulting Act as
required by statute.
The University did not accept this finding. University officials stated that the
University has a strong monitoring process and will continue to require
faculty to comply (For the previous agency response, see Digest footnote #1.)
In an auditor comment, we noted that the University Faculty
Research and Consulting Act requires faculty of the University to obtain
prior written approval of the President before performing the research and/or
consulting services. The University
should hold accountable any faculty that does not comply with the Act.
FAILURE TO UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE WASTE REDUCTION PLAN
The
University did not comply with the Illinois Solid Waste Management Act
(Act).
The University is required by the Act to have their
Comprehensive Waste Reduction Plan updated every 5 years after the initial
plan is written. The University’s
initial plan was written on December 16, 1994 and has never been updated.
Failure to update the plan is a violation
of statute and may result in the University not identifying opportunities and
taking appropriate measures to reduce wastes sent to area landfills. (Finding 11, pages 27-28)
We recommended that the University
comply with the requirements of the Illinois Solid Waste Management Act and
update their comprehensive Waste Reduction Plan every 5 years.
The University did not accept this
finding. University officials stated that they believed its update is due
after an initial ten year period.
In an auditor comment we noted that the
Act states “The initial plan required under this Section shall be updated by
the institution every 5 years, and any proposed amendments to the plan shall
be submitted for review…” The University has not proposed any amendments to
its plan and has not updated its plan since the initial plan was submitted in
1994 – 11 years ago. An update to the
plan was due by January 1, 2000 and another by January 1, 2005.
OTHER FINDINGS
The remaining findings are reportedly being given attention
by University officials. We will
review progress toward implementation of our recommendations in our next
audit.
University responses to the findings were provided by the
Vice President for Administration & Planning, Mr. John Tuohy, in a letter
dated January 26, 2006.
AUDITORS' OPINION
Our
auditors state the University’s financial statements as of June 30, 2005 and
for the year then ended, are fairly presented in all material respects.
____________________________________
WILLIAM
G. HOLLAND, Auditor General
WGH:TLK:pp
SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS
Our special assistant auditors
for this audit were Nykiel Carlin & Co., LTD.
DIGEST FOOTNOTES
#1 UNIVERSITY FACULTY RESEARCH
& CONSULTING – Previous University Response
2004: The University leads the State in the strength of
its policies and procedures for the University Faculty Research and
Consulting Act. We will continue to
support faculty in their compliance with this Act.
|
