GUARDIANSHIP AND ADVOCACY COMMISSION
COMPLIANCE ATTESTATION EXAMINATION
For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2011
Release Date: March 6, 2012
Summary of Findings:
Total this audit: 4
Total last audit: 2
Repeated from last audit: 2
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 TTY (888) 261-2887
This Report Digest and Full Report are also available on the worldwide web at www.auditor.illinois.gov
• 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 11 members as required.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE RECORDS
The Commission did not exercise adequate controls over employee attendance records to ensure employees’ benefit time was timely and properly recorded.
During our testing of 11 employees’ attendance records for six months during the examination period, we noted the following:
• Six of 11 (55%) 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 8 discrepancies totaling 46 hours when comparing the PPTR and CTAS reports for the months tested.
• Four of 11 (36%) employees’ accrued benefit balances did not agree to the corresponding CTAS balance. We noted 22 instances where leave time totaling 173 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 413 days after the leave time was taken. (Finding 1, pages 9-10) This finding was first reported in 2007.
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 lack of administrative staff dedicated to this task contributed to the weaknesses. (For the previous agency response, see Digest Footnote #1.)
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 FY10 and FY11. (Finding 2, page 11)
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 find, vet, and submit qualified candidates to the Governor’s Office.
The remaining findings are reportedly being given attention by the Commission. We will review progress toward the implementation of our recommendations during the next examination.
We conducted a compliance examination of the Commission as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act. The Commission has no funds that require an audit leading to an opinion on financial statements.
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND
Our special assistant auditors for this engagement were Kyle E. McGinnis, CPA.
#1 - INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER EMPLOYEE ATTENDANCE RECORDS - Previous Agency Response
We agree. Staff turnover in the last two years as well as the implementation of a new timekeeping system contributed to this weakness.
As with any newer system, enhancements to policies and procedures are expected and required. The agency will begin to more effectively utilize existing internal documentation required by those policy enhancements. Emphasis will be placed on timely entry of data in automated record-keeping systems, verification of the relevant data, independent review by management, and employee participation in the process.
We also agree that inadequate controls over timekeeping procedures could increase the risk of benefit time being used and not recorded or paying for services not rendered by employees; however, we believe that neither of those scenarios occurred because of the adjustments to the timekeeping system made by the agency.