| 
   
 REPORT DIGEST GUARDIANSHIP AND ADVOCACY COMMISSION COMPLIANCE
  EXAMINATION For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2009 Summary of Findings: Total this audit 2 Total last audit 6 Repeated from last audit 1 R February 4, 2010 
 
 
 State of Ill Office of the Auditor General WILLIAM G. HOLLAND AUDITOR GENERAL 
 
 
 To obtain a copy of the
  Report contact: Office of the Auditor
  General (217) 782-6046 or TTY (888)
  261-2887 This Report Digest and Full
  Report are also available on the worldwide web at http://www.auditor.illinois.gov  | 
  
  SYNOPSIS· The Commission did not exercise adequate controls over employee attendance records to ensure employees’ benefit time was timely and properly recorded. · The Commission did not consist of the 11 members as required by the Guardianship and Advocacy Act. 
      {Expenditures and Activity
  Measures are summarized on the reverse page.} 
  | 
 
GUARDIANSHIP AND ADVOCACY COMMISSION
                                                      COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
                                                     For
The Period Ended June 30, 2009
| 
   COMMISSION STATISTICS  | 
  
   FY 2009  | 
  
   FY 2008  | 
  
   FY 2007  | 
 
| 
   Total Expenditures (All Appropriated Funds)...   | 
  
   $9,941,072  | 
  
   $9,218,360  | 
  
   $8,762,460 
  | 
 
| 
        OPERATIONS TOTAL...................................           %
  of Total Expenditures..........................   | 
  
   $9,941,072 100%  | 
  
   $9,218,360 100%  | 
  
   $8,762,460 100%  | 
 
| 
            Personal
  Services.....................................              % of Operations Expenditures.............              Average No. of Employees.................   | 
  
   $6,911,526 70% 112  | 
  
   $6,660,923 72% 113  | 
  
   $6,611,064 75% 115  | 
 
| 
            Other
  Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)....              % of Operations Expenditures.............   | 
  
   $1,967,449 20%  | 
  
   $1,597,822 17%  | 
  
   $1,252,714 14%  | 
 
| 
            Contractual
  Services.................................              % of Operations Expenditures.............   | 
  
   $341,359 3%  | 
  
   $241,917 3%  | 
  
   $257,831 3%  | 
 
| 
            Travel...............................................................              % of Operations Expenditures.............   | 
  
   $176,963 2%  | 
  
   $161,435 2%  | 
  
   $175,283 2%  | 
 
| 
            Telecommunications..........................................              % of Operations Expenditures.............            Social Service Shared              % of Operations Expenditures.............   | 
  
   $266,853 3% $134,860 1%  | 
  
   $196,181 2% $200,000 2%  | 
  
   $239,075 3% $0 0%  | 
 
| 
            All
  Other Operations Items.......................              % of Operations Expenditures.............   | 
  
   $142,062 1%  | 
  
   $160,082 2%  | 
  
   $226,493 3%  | 
 
| 
   Ward Trust Fund          Cash
  in banks...........................................   | 
  
   $2,055,643  | 
  
   $2,053,731  | 
  
   $2,362,063  | 
 
| 
   Cost of Property and Equipment .......................   | 
  
   $829,891  | 
  
   $798,346  | 
  
   $765,927  | 
 
| 
   Total Receipts Deposited into State Treasury.......   | 
  
   $72,641  | 
  
   $95,349  | 
  
   $86,569  | 
 
| 
   SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES (Not examined)  | 
  
   FY 2009  | 
  
   FY 2008  | 
  
   FY 2007  | 
 
| 
   
	·        
  Office of State Guardian No. of Wards served............................................ Ave. No. of Assigned Cases per Worker...............  | 
  
   4,861 117  | 
  
   4,964 123  | 
  
   5,059 119  | 
 
| 
   
	·        
  Legal Advocacy Service No. of Client Cases Handled.................................  | 
  
   8,666  | 
  
   8,412  | 
  
   8,523  | 
 
| 
   
	·        
  Human Rights Authority No. of Cases Handled...........................................  | 
  
   338  | 
  
   321  | 
  
   275  | 
 
| 
   AGENCY DIRECTOR(S)  | 
 
| 
   During Examination Period:  Dr. Mary L. Milano  Currently:  Dr. Mary L. Milano   | 
 
| 
   
 Timekeeping discrepancies 
 Employee leave time was not recorded timely Commission consisted of 9 members  | 
  
   FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
  RECOMMENDATIONS INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER
  EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE RECORDS
        The Guardianship and Advocacy Commission
  (Commission) did not exercise adequate
  controls over employee attendance records to ensure employees’ benefit time
  was timely and properly recorded.       During
  our testing of 25 employees’ attendance records for six months during the
  examination period,  we  noted
  the following:       Ten of 25 (40%) employees’ timekeeping
  records did not agree when comparing the certified Pay Period Time Report (PPTR)
  to the Central Time and Attendance System (CTAS).    We noted 85 discrepancies totaling 408
  hours when comparing the PPTR and CTAS reports for the months tested.    In addition during our review of the PPTR
  quarterly reports, 12 of 25 (48%) employees’ accrued benefit balances did not
  agree to the corresponding CTAS balance.   We noted 114 instances where leave time totaling
  1,255 hours was not entered on the CTAS report timely.  Adjustments were made to correct the CTAS
  balance; however, those adjustments were made from 13 to 169 days after the
  leave time was taken.  
       We recommended the Commission implement
  procedures to ensure accurate and timely entry of employee work hours and
  benefit time.   We further recommended
  the Commission ensures its PPTR and CTAS systems are accurate and reconcile.  Commission officials agreed with our finding and stated staff turnover as well as the implementation of a new timekeeping system contributed to the weaknesses. COMMISSION NOT STAFFED AS REQUIRED The Guardianship and Advocacy
  Commission (Commission) did not consist of the 11 members as required by the
  Guardianship and Advocacy Act. The
  Commission consisted of 9 members appointed by the Governor for three-year
  terms during FY08 and FY09.   We recommended the
  Commission work with the Governor’s Office until the vacancies are filled. Commission officials agreed with the finding and stated they would continue to work with the Governor’s Office of Boards and Commissions to identify and recruit qualified individuals to serve as Commission members. AUDITORS’ OPINION      We
  conducted a compliance examination of the Commission as required by the
  Illinois State Auditing Act.   We have
  not audited any financial statements of the Commission for the purpose of
  expressing an opinion because the Commission does not, nor is it required to,
  prepare financial statements. ___________________________________ WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General                                                           WGH:PH:pp AUDITORS ASSIGNED This examination was performed by the staff of the Office of the Auditor General.  |