REPORT DIGEST

 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

 

 

COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION

For the Two Years Ended:

June 30, 2006

 

Summary of Findings:

Total this audit†††††††††††††           3

Total last audit†††††††††††††           2

Repeated from last audit†††††††††1

 

Release Date:

 February 15, 2007

 

 

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 the Full Report are also available on

the worldwide web at

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYNOPSIS

 

 

 

 

®      JCAR did not fully comply with the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act which requires the evaluation of all agency rules at least once every five years.

 

®      JCAR did not maintain sufficient controls over the recording and reporting of its property and equipment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 


†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† COMPLIANCE AUDIT

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† For The Two Years Ended June 30, 2006

 

EXPENDITURE STATISTICS

FY 2006

FY 2005

FY 2004

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

 

$952,295

$1,009,439

$944,955

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

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

$952,295

100.00%

$1,009,439

100.00%

$944,955

100.00%

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

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

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

$727,332

76.38%

18

$724,652

71.79%

19

$728,474

77.09%

19

†††††††† Other Payroll Costs (FICA,

†††††††† Retirement)....................................................

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

 

$138,767

14.57%

 

$199,281

19.74%

 

$150,961

15.98%

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

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

$34,368

3.61%

$44,981

4.46%

$29,874

3.16%

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

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

 

$51,828

5.44%

$40,525

4.01%

$35,646

3.77%

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

$116,960

$148,905

$148,905

 

SELECTED ACTIVITY MEASURES*

(Not Examined)

2006

(as of 7/1/06)

2005

2004

 

Rules received.........................................................

Rules reviewed........................................................

Recommendations made..........................................

Objections...............................................................

††††† * calendar year basis

289

131

2

8

461

420

24

11

399

371

28

13

 

AGENCY DIRECTOR

†††† During Audit Period:Ms. Vicki Thomas

†††† Currently:Ms. Vicki Thomas

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation of agency rules

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Insufficient controls over recording and reporting of equipment items

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

 

††††† The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) did not fully comply with the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100 et seq.).The Act requires the evaluation of all rules of each agency at least once every five years.The Act also requires JCAR to perform a systematic and continuing study of existing rules or the existing rulemaking process of agencies and to make periodic investigations of the rulemaking activities of all agencies.We noted that JCAR was not in compliance with these provisions of the Act.

 

††††† We recommended JCAR either develop and implement a formal long range plan which addresses methods to bring its operations into compliance with these statutory requirements or seek appropriate legislative remedy.(Finding 1, pages 8-9)

 

††††† JCAR officials responded they will again consider legislative changes when it devises its legislative recommendations for next year.This finding was first reported in 1988.(For the previous agency response, see Digest Footnote 1.)

 

 

PROPERTY CONTROL AND REPORTING WEAKNESSES

 

††††† The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) did not maintain sufficient controls over the recording and reporting of its property and equipment.We noted JCAR did not add or remove items from their inventory records in a timely manner, did not add all items received in an accurate manner and did not submit accurate quarterly reports to the State Comptroller.We also noted two items selected for testing had the same tag number.

 

††††† We recommended JCAR ensure all equipment is accurately and timely recorded in JCARís property records and properly tagged.In addition, we recommended JCAR thoroughly review all reports prepared from internal records for accuracy before submission to the State Comptroller.(Finding 2, pages 10-11)

 

††††† JCAR officials responded that staff will endeavor to be more timely and accurate in the future.

 

†††††

AUDITORSí OPINION

 

We conducted a compliance examination of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) as required by the Illinois State Auditing Act.We have not audited any financial statements of the JCAR for the purpose of expressing an opinion because the JCAR does not, nor is it required to, prepare financial statements.

 

 

 

____________________________________

WILLIAM G. HOLLAND, Auditor General

 

WGH:JSC:pp

 

 

 

 

ASSIGNED AUDITORS

†††††

The compliance examination was conducted by the Auditor Generalís staff.

 

 

DIGEST FOOTNOTES

 

#1:NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT - Previous Agency Response

 

2004: JCAR acknowledges that is has not been able to carry out the statutory requirement that it conduct a five-year review of all the rules of all State agencies.During 4 years early in JCAR's history (1980-83), an attempt was made to conduct these reviews, but that effort had to be abandoned for lack of adequate staff resources to conduct both on-going review of new regulations and the 5-year periodic review.To responsibly fulfill both of these mandates would require at least twice the staff resources that have been available to JCAR.

 

††††††††† In view of the present levels of staffing, JCAR like every other State agency with limited resources, has had to set priorities.It has chosen to give more priority to ongoing review of new rules and amendments to existing rules than to a structured 5-year review for several reasons.

 

††††††††† First, a review of all existing rules every 5 years would have the main advantage of removing from the Code any rules that are no longer necessary, streamlining rules that have been adopted piecemeal over the years, and updating language to the currently preferred plain language style.However, those rules have been in existence for several years without cataclysmic results.In recognition of this, JCAR believes it has acted responsibly in giving priority to reviewing new rules and new regulatory schemes, the reasonableness of which has not been tested by time.

 

††††††††† Second, the goals of culling outdated rules, streamlining rules and improving their readability is served to a great degree within the on-going review program.Some agencies initiate this type of cleanup with diligence, and JCAR promotes review of existing text as part of its review of every amendatory rulemaking.

 

††††††††† Third, the initial responsibility for Code cleanup lies not with JCAR, but with the administrative agencies.They created the regulations and they work continually with the affected public in their implementation of those regulations.JCARís conduct of a five-year review would serve mainly to force an agency to periodically give priority to initiating a self-review and cleanup if it has not been able to do so in the course of its normal activities.The absence of formal 5-year review does not mean that existing rule is not reviewed, because many agencies are commendably responsible in continually reviewing their own rules.

 

††††††††† Fourth, JCAR gives strong priority to its complaint review program as well as its proposed rule review program.If, after an existing regulation has been time tested, any member of the public brings a complaint about the regulation to JCAR, staff will initiate a preliminary review and report the issue to the JCAR membership.JCAR can then vote to officially pursue the issue with the agency.In partnership with the affected public, JCAR has been able to concentrate its limited resources on existing rules that are problematic, rather than dedicating countless hours to review of adequate and responsible rules.

 

††††††††† The auditors recommend that if JCAR cannot conduct 5-year review, it seek an amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act to change the current mandatory requirement for such review.As this finding points out, such legislation has been initiated in the past, but without passage.JCAR will again consider this issue when it devises its legislative recommendations for 2005.