2012 Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission Compliance Examination

              Office of the Auditor General, Iles Park Plaza, 740 E. Ash St., Springfield, IL 62703 • Tel: 217-782-6046 or TTY 888-261-2887
This Report Digest and a Full Report are also available on the internet at www.auditor.illinois.gov
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For the Two Years Ended: June 30, 2011
Summary of Findings:
Total this audit:
Total last audit:
Repeated from last audit:
3
3
1
Release Date: May 17, 2012
SYNOPSIS
• The Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) did not maintain sufficient controls over the recording and reporting of its State property.
• The Commission did not maintain sufficient controls over receipts processing.
{Expenditures and Activity Measures are summarized on the reverse page.}ii
EXPENDITURE STATISTICS
Total Appropriations...........................................
10,000,000$
10,000,000$
10,000,000$
Total Expenditures...............................................
924,740$
805,392$
177,318$
Total Receipts.......................................................
808$
16,122$
-$
Average Number of Employees..........................
2
3
3
During Examination Period: John Lupton
Currently: John Lupton
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
AGENCY DIRECTOR
2009
2010
2011iii
Lack of controls over property
Reports did not reconcile
C-15 reports not filed timely
Donations excluded from property listing
Incorrect property listing
Commission agrees with auditors
Lack of controls over receipts
Cash receipt log not maintained
Documentation not maintained
Receipt Deposit Transmittal forms not submitted
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPERTY CONTROL WEAKNESSES
The Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) did not maintain sufficient controls over the recording and reporting of its State property. During testing we noted the following:
• The Commission did not reconcile its property listing to the Quarterly Report of State Property (C-15) filed with the Office of the Comptroller (IOC), therefore the Commission’s property listing as of June 30, 2011 did not agree to the amount reported on the C-15.
• The Commission did not timely file two C-15 reports with the IOC. The reports were submitted 3 and 25 days late.
• The Commission did not include $14,645 of donations on its property listing.
• The Commission did not properly document nine equipment items on the property listing. (Finding 1, pages 8-9)
We recommended the Commission strengthen internal controls over recording and reporting of its equipment.
Commission management accepted the finding and recommendation and stated they have instituted better practices by reducing unnecessary property, educating themselves with requirements, and managing donated property.
INADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER RECEIPTS PROCESSING
The Commission did not maintain sufficient controls over receipts processing. During testing, we noted the following:
• The Commission did not document maintain a cash receipt log containing the minimum detail and supporting documentation as required.
• The Commission did not maintain copies of checks, copies of receipts given for promotional sales, and copies of deposit receipts.
• The Commission did not submit Receipt Deposit Transmittal forms to the Office of the Comptroller for 12 of 22 receipts tested. iv
Refunds and miscellaneous receipts incorrectly recorded
Receipt reconciliations not performed
Commission agrees with auditors
• The cash receipt log recorded refunds and miscellaneous into one category.
• The Commission did not reconcile receipts to the Office of the Comptroller. (Finding 3, page 11)
We recommended the Commission strengthen its internal controls over receipts processing.
Commission management accepted the finding and recommendation and stated they will gain the proper education regarding the requirements and best practices to process income.
OTHER FINDING
The remaining finding pertains to controls related to voucher processing. We will review the Commission’s progress toward the implementation of our recommendation in our next examination.
AUDITORS’ OPINION
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 of financial statements.
___________________________________
WILLIAM G. HOLLAND
Auditor General
WGH:SW:rt
AUDITORS ASSIGNED
Campbell, LLC were our special assistant auditors for this engagement.