REPORT DIGEST

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

 

COMPLIANCE

ATTESTATION

EXAMINATION

 

For the Two Years Ended:

June 30, 2005

 

 

Summary of Findings:

 

Total this audit†††††††††            †††† 6

Total last audit††††††††††††            † 5

Repeated from last audit†††††††††† 2

 

Release Date:

March 22, 2006

 

 

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 is also available on

the worldwide web at

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS

 

®      The Commission made payments for efficiency initiative billings from improper line item appropriations.

 

®      The Commission did not maintain proper internal controls over its property.

 

®      The Commission did not timely authorize contractual agreements.Further, contracts were not filed with the Office of the State Comptroller in a timely manner.

 

®      The Commission did not have adequate controls over employee timekeeping requirements.Specifically, the Commission did not maintain timesheets documenting the employeeís time spent each day as required by the State Officials and Employee Ethics Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


 

 

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

COMPLIANCE ATTESTATION EXAMINATION

For The Two Years Ended June 30, 2005

 

 

EXPENDITURE STATISTICS

FY 2005

FY 2004

FY 2003

          Total Expenditures (All Funds).............................

$1,315,238

$1,194,464

$1,346,630

†††††††††† OPERATIONS TOTAL.........................................

††††††††††††††† % of Total Expenditures.....................................

†††††††† ††††††

††††††††††††††† Personal Services...............................................

††††††††††††††† % of Operations Expenditures.............................

††††††††††††††† Average No. of Employees.................................

††††††††††

$1,315,238

100%

 

$930,655

70.8%

18

$1,194,464

100%

 

$883,399

74.0%

17

$1,346,630

100%

 

$966,889

71.8%

19

††††††††††††††† Other Payroll Costs (FICA, Retirement)...............

††††††††††††††† % of Operations Expenditures.............................

$220,459

16.8%

$146,625

12.3%

$209,324

15.5%

†††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††† Contractual Services...........................................

††††††††††††††† % of Operations Expenditures.............................

 

$117,982

8.9%

 

$117,966

9.8%

 

$125,560

9.3%

†††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††† All Other Items..............................................

††††††††††††††† % of Operations Expenditures.......................... †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† .....................................................................

 

$46,142

3.5%

 

$46,474

3.9%

 

$44,857

3.4%

          Cost of Property and Equipment...........................

†††††† $208,058

$205,104

$340,536

 

SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES (Not Examined)

FY 2005

FY 2004

FY 2003

         Average Number of Administrative Judges at Year End........................................................................

         Average Administrative Judge Caseload.....................

 

6

99

 

6

105

 

7

99

 

         Total Complaints Filed or on File ................................

847

905

1,028

         Cases Completed......................................................

255

273

333

       Open Cases at Fiscal Year End.......................................

592

632

695

 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

 

Executive Director - Mr. James Sledge (currently and during the examination period)

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Efficiency initiative payments were not paid from the line item appropriation where the cost savings were anticipated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44 items were not being utilized

 

 

 

 

Property and equipment items were not properly recorded

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contractual agreements were not filed timely with the Comptroller

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commission did not maintain detailed timesheets as required by the State Officials and Employee Ethics Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE Payments

†††††

††††† The Commission 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 Commission did not receive guidance or documentation from which line item appropriations savings were anticipated to occur.The only guidance indicated on the billing invoice was the amount for payments that should be taken from General Revenue Funds versus Other Funds for the billings.

 

††††††† The Commission made payments for these billings not from line item appropriations where cost savings were anticipated to have occurred, but from line items appropriations that had available funds.The Commission paid $8,195 for the CMS billing relating to the Procurement Efficiency Initiative.

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

††††† We recommended the Commission only make payments for efficiency initiative billings from line item appropriations where savings would be anticipated to occur.(Finding 1, pages 10-11)

 

†††††† The Commission acknowledged and stated they would seek an explanation from CMS as to how saving levels were calculated, or otherwise arrived at and how the savings achieved or anticipated impact the Commissionís budget.

 

 

 

lack of controls over property

 

The Commission did not maintain proper internal controls over its property.We noted the following:

 

  • 44 items were not being utilized, of which, 4 did not have property tags.

 

  • Eight items were not listed on the Commissionís detailed property and equipment listing, totaling $858.

 

  • A copier acquired through a capital lease did not have a cost associated with it on the detailed property and equipment listing.The fair market value of the lease was $22,028.

 

  • The cost of a computer workstation was not properly recorded on the detailed property and equipment listing, totaling $377.

 

††††† We recommend the Commission strengthen controls over property and equipment to ensure proper accountability and reduce potential for possible loss and or theft of State property.(Finding 2, pages 12-13)

 

††††††† The Commission acknowledged the finding and recommendation and stated they will continue to identify ways to strengthen controls over property and equipment.

 

LACK OF TIMELY CONTRACTUAL AUTHORIZATION

 

††††††† The Commission did not timely authorize contractual agreements.

†††††

One of 12 (8%) of the Commissionís contractual agreements, totaling $45,000 was not approved prior to the beginning date of the contract.

 

Five of 12 (42%) of the Commissionís contractual agreements, totaling $128,899 were not filed with the Comptrollerís Office within 15 days of execution.Submissions ranged from 12 to 98 days late.

 

††††† We recommend the Commission strengthen controls to ensure contractual agreements are approved prior to execution and the contracts are filed with the Comptrollerís Office in a timely manner.(Finding 4, page 15)

 

††††† Commission officials acknowledged the finding and recommendation and stated they will identify ways to ensure contractual agreements are approved prior to execution and ensure proper filings with the Comptrollerís Office.

 

NEED TO COMPLY WITH STATE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEE ETHICS ACT

 

The Commission did not maintain timesheets documenting the employeeís time spent each day on official business.

 

The State Officials and Employee Ethics Act (5 ILCS 430/5-5) requires State employees to periodically submit timesheets documenting the time spent each day on official State business to the nearest quarter hour.

 

We recommend the Commission establish policies and procedures which will ensure timesheets are being prepared and submitted periodically.(Finding 5, page 16)

 

Commission officials acknowledged the finding and recommendation and stated they will seek clarification of what additional requirements are necessary to comply.

 

Other Findings

†††††

††††† The remaining findings involved the lack of segregation of duties and employee performance evaluations not being completed timely.We will review progress toward implementation of all recommendations during our next audit.

 

††††† Mr. James Sledge, Director provided the Commissionís responses.

 

 

___________________________________

WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General

WGH:mkl:pp

 

SPECIAL ASSISTANT AUDITORS

 

††††† Our special assistant auditors were DeRaimo Hillger & Ripp.