FY11-SCHPC-Comp-Full

              STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT
HISTORIC PRESERVAnON COMMISSION
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For the Two Years Ended JWle 30, 2011
Perfonned as Special Assistance Auditors fur
The Auditor General, State of III inois
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Agency Officials 1
Management Assertion Letter 2
Compliance Report
Summary 3
Accountants' Report
Independent Accountants' Report on State Compliance, on Internal
Control Over Compliance, and on Supplementary Information
for State Compliance Purposes 5
Schedule of Findings
Current Findings - State Compliance 8
Prior Findings Not Repeated 13
Supplementary Information for State Compliance Purposes
Swnmary 14
Fiscal Schedules and Analysis
Schedule of Appropriations, Expenditures and Lapsed Balances 15
Comparative Schedule ofNet Appropriations, Expenditures
and Lapsed Balances 17
Schedule of Changes in State Property 18
Comparative Schedule of Cash Receipts 19
Reconciliation Schedule of Cash Receipts to Deposits Remitted
to the State Comptroller 20
Analysis of Significant Variations in Expenditures 21
Analysis of Significant Variations in Receipts 22
Analysis of Significant Lapse Period Spending 23
Analysis of Operations
Agency Functions and Planning Program 24
Average Number of Employees 25
Service Efforts and Accomplishments (Not Examined) 26
AGENCY OFFICIALS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Acting Executive Director (5/1/11 to Present)
Executive Director (07/01/09 to 04/30/11)
Director of History Programs (12/7/09 to Present)
Director of Administration (03/30/11 to Present)
Director ofAdministration (07/01/09 to 03/29/11)
Director of Communication (07/01/09 to Present)
Acting Chief Fiscal Officer (03/30/11 to Present)
Commission office is located at:
625 South Second Street
Springfield, Illinois 62704
1
Mr. John Lupton
Mr. William Wheeler
Mr. John Lupton
Vacant
Ms. Madeline Gumble
Mr. Matt Burns
Mr. Matt Burns
STATE COMPLlAN'CE FXAi\1lNATION:
MANAGEMEi'~T ASSI:.RTJO~ LETIER
Apri112,20l2
Campbell, LLC
Certified Public ACCl-iuntants
327 Missouri AVCl1lW, Suite 603
East St. Louis, It 62201
We are responsible for the identification of. and compliance wi~ aU aspects of laws, regulations. contracts, or
grant agreementc; that could have a material effect on the operations of the DJinois Supreme Court HL4iltoric
Preservation Commission (Commission). We arc responsibie for and we have established and maintained an
ctf~ive system of. internal controls over compliance roquir,~..'nt'Dts. We have perfonnc:d an evaluation of the
Commission·s compliance with the followhlg assertions dwing the two-year perlud ended JW1e 30, 2011. Ba.'ilCd on
this evaluation, we assert that dui..ng the years endoo Jtme 30. 2010 and Jtme 30. 2011, the Commission has
materially complied with the assertions hclov/
A. TILe Con:IiTalssion 11M ~.bligated, expended, received and used public funds ofthe State in accordance with the
pUfpo~e for which such fw,ds have been appropriated or otherwise auL.":.oru:oo by liiW.
B. The Commission has obligated, expended, received and usOO public funcls ofthe StBfe ill aCCt)Nlll1CC wilh any
:imitations. t\...~ctions. oonditions or mandatory directions impoStld by law upon such obligation, expendinue.
receipt or use.
('. The Commission bali complied., in all mllterial l"C'Spects. with ttpplicable laws and regulations, including the
State unifonn accounting system. in its financial ane fiscal op~tion<;.
D. State revenue.~ and receipts co!k>eu!(i by t.he Commission are in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations and the accounting and recordkocping of st,lch n::v~!1_ues ar.d receipts is fair, aCCW'8t~ and in 8ccoro;mce
with law.
Crrnm.Jsiollm: Inion B. SimDI';, CJwi~
F.x Off~"!(} 9"thi~ }; (,"Pbt. Ki,,, it N.... H';1I;', U~Mwbri t; M,.c,.i."tl" J>.utJillt~"':''l'1IItt'1JJn'f
J~l'1';' A. PI1:.>-rr,fl Wilfl.t.".J f!!<'rc1"., ]..-ru H~-:...,'· RAt!.... fi"",.'>IlJl.. ./""" ,il 1b''lJpJl)Il
E. Money or ne30tia:>le securities or !'imilar a$.~. ets handled by the agency on behalf of the State or held in
trust by the Commission have been prop~iy and legally ftdminister...>d. and the accounting and reco~eeping
relating thereto is proper, accurate and in accor~..an~e with iaw. it~*'**
~. ~
Yours very truly,
Dlinois S.. upreme Court Histotjc Preservation Commission .JI
i:~·" I).oft ....,.,/,./' lI4'~ , ·ll /1).. ....-.,. ~. r1 '~7; L..- ~._.._......,....-.::__
John L~aon. Abfillg Executive Director Matt Bums, Acting Chief Fiscal OffiC4'
2
COMPLIANCE REPORT
SUMMARY
The compliance testing perfonned during this examination was conducted in accordance
with Government Auditing Standards and in accordance with the Illinois State Auditing Act.
ACCOUNTANTS'REPORT
The Independent Accountants' Report on State Compliance, on Internal Control Over
Compliance and on Supplementary Infonnation for State Compliance Purposes does not contain
scope limitations, disclaimers, or other significant non-standard language.
SUM.\1ARY OF FINDINGS
Number of
Findings
Repeated findings
Prior recommendations implemented
or not repeated
Current
Report
3
1
2
Prior
Report
3
N/A
N/A
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS
Item No. Page Description Finding Type
FINDINGS (STATE COMPLIANCE)
11-1 8 Inadequate Controls over Property Significant Deficiency
and Noncompliance
11-2 10 Inadequate Controls over Voucher Processing Significant Deficiency
and Noncompliance
11-3 11 Inadequate Controls over Receipts Processing Significant Deficiency
and Noncompliance
PRIOR FINDINGS NOT REPEATED
A 13 Inadequate Segregation of Duties
B 13 Incomplete Policies and Procedures in Place
3
EXIT CONFERENCE
The findings and recommendations appearing in this report were discussed with Commission
personnel at an exit conference on April 3, 2012. Attending were:
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
John Lupton
Mathew Burns
Acting Executive Director
Acting Chief Fiscal Officer
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Stephanie V/ildhaber
Johnny E. Campbell
Joseph Joyner
Dawayne Stewart
Alexandra Jones
Leonard Johnson
CAMPBELL,LLC
Audit Manager
Partner
Supervisor
In-charge Accountant
Assistant
Assistant
Responses to the recommendations were provided by John Lupton, Executive Director, in a letter
dated April 9, 2012.
4
Hfmbtrl
Amrriun IASlilutr of Clrtifird PubS' MccunUn!
l!inois CPA Soci.dl
(AMP8(LL. LtC
[t>lllfl,d Pubii( !{founl.nll· Iohn4:9rmrnl fon\ult.lnh
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON STATE COMPLIANCE,
ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE, AND ON SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION FOR STATE COMPLIANCE PURPOSES
Honorable William G. Holland
Auditor General
State of Illinois
Compliance
As Special Assistant Auditors for the Auditor General, we have examined the State of Illinois,
Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission's (Commission) compliance with the
requirements listed below, as more fully described in the Audit Guide for Financial Audits and
Compliance Attestation Engagements of Illinois State Agencies (Audit Guide) as adopted by the
Auditor General, during the two years ended June 30, 2011. The management of the
Commission is responsible for compliance with these requirements. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on the Commission's compliance based on our examination.
A. The Commission has obligated, expended, received, and used public funds ofthe State in
accordance with the purpose for which such funds have been appropriated or otherwise
authorized by law.
B. The Commission has obligated, expended, received, and used public funds of the State in
accordance with any limitations, restrictions, conditions or mandatory directions imposed
by law upon such obligation, expenditure, receipt or use.
C. The Commission has complied, in all material respects, with applicable laws and
regulations, including the State uniform accounting system, in its financial and fiscal
operations.
D. State revenues and receipts collected by the Commission are in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations and the accounting and recordkeeping of such revenues
and receipts is fair, accurate and in accordance with law.
E. Money or negotiable securities or similar assets handled by the Commission on behalf of
the State or held in trust by the Commission have been properly and legally administered
and the accounting and recordkeeping relating thereto is proper, accurate, and in
accordance with law.
~-----_._-----------_._-_.--,---.---._~---
5
first Illinois Ban~ BuiMing .321 Missouri Avenue, Suite 6D~ .fast St.lOUiS, Jl6nO I
Phone: (618) 114-1n I.fax: (618) 214-4413 .[mail: www,(amp~eIHIc.com
We conducted our examination in accordance with attestation standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; the standards applicable to attestation
engagements contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States; the Illinois State Auditing Act (Act); and the Audit Guide as adopted by the
Auditor General pursuant to the Act; and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence about the Commission's compliance with those requirements listed in the first
paragraph of this report and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Commission's compliance with
specified requirements.
In our opinion, the Commission complied, in all material respects, with the compliance
requirements listed in the fust paragraph ofthis report during the two years ended June 30, 2011.
However, the results of our procedures disclosed instances of noncompliance with the
requirements, which are required to be reported in accordance with criteria established by the
Audit Guide, issued by the Illinois Office of the Auditor General and which are described in the
accompanying schedule offmdings as items 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3.
Internal Control
Management of the Commission is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective
internal control over compliance with the requirements listed in the first paragraph of this report.
In planning and performing our examination, we considered the Commission's internal control
over compliance with the requirements listed in the fust paragraph of this report as a basis for
designing our examination procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance
and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Audit Guide,
issued by the Illinois Office of the Auditor General, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not
express an opinion on the effectiveness ofthe Commission's internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in an entity's internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation
of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of
performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with the
requirements listed in the first paragraph of this report on a timely basis. A material weakness
over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over
compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a
requirement listed in the first paragraph of this report will not be prevented, or detected and
corrected, on a timely basis.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in
the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal
control over compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material
wealmesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we
consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, we identified certain
deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we considered to be significant deficiencies
as described in the accompanying schedule of findings as items 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3. A
significant deficiency in an entity's internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance that is less severe than a
material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention
by those charged with governance.
6
As required by the Audit Guide, immaterial findings excluded from this report have been
reported in a separate letter to your office.
The Commission's responses to the findings identified in our examination are described in the
accompanying schedule of fmdings. We did not examine the Commission's responses and,
accordinglYJ we express no opinion on the responses.
Supplemental)' Information for State Compliance Purposes
Our examination was conducted for the purpose of fonning an opinion on compliance with the
requirements listed in the first paragraph of this report. The accompanying supplementary
information as listed in the table ofcontents as Supplementary Information for State Compliance
Purposes is presented for purposes of additional analysis. We have applied certain limited
procedures as prescribed by the Audit Guide as adopted by the Auditor General to the 2011 and
2010 Supplementary Information for State Compliance Purposes, except for Service Efforts and
Accomplishments on which we did not perfonn any procedures. However, we do not express an
opinion on the supplementary information.
We have not applied procedures to the 2009 Supplementary Information for State Compliance
Purposes, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion thereon.
This report is intended solely for the infonnation and use of the Auditor General, the General
Assembly, the Legislative Audit Commission, the Governor, Commission management, and the
Commission's governing board and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other
than these specified parties.
Campbell LLC
April12J 2012
7
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVAnON COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
11-1. FINDING (Inadequate Controls over Property)
The Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) did not maintain
sufficient controls over the recording and reporting ofits 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 Illinois Office of the Comptroller (lOC). The June 30,
2010 amounts reported on the C-15 did not agree to the Commission's property listing.
The Commission did not maintain support for the net transfer amount reported on its
C-15 resulting in a difference of $879 between the C-15 and the Commission's
property records as ofJune 30, 2010 that was not reconciled or explained.
• Two of eight (25%) C-15 reports were not timely filed with the IOC. The reports were
submitted 3 and 25 days late.
~ The Commission did not include $14,645 ofdonations on its property listing.
• The Commission did not maintain an accurate property listing. Nine of 65 (14%)
property tested, totaling $4,298 were not documented properly. We noted the
following:
o one item with incorrect description;
o two items with incorrect location;
o one item was not physically identified;
o four items did not include the value; and
o one item was not in the list but was physically identified.
• The Commission's property and equipment expenditures processed by the IOC during
FYI0 and FYll did not reconcile to additions recorded on the C-15 reports. The IOC
reported property and equipment expenditures of $37,588 and $18,888, while the
Commission reported additions of $87,617 and $15,997 on the C-15 during FYIO and
FYI1, respectively. This resulted in a difference of $50,029 and $2,891 during FYIO
and FYII, respectively. Both differences could not be explained by the Commission.
Good business practices require detailed property records be maintained and reconciled to
support various reporting requirements. The State Property Control Act (Act) (30 ILCS
605/4) requires the Commission be accountable for the supervision, control and inventory of
all property under its jurisdiction and control. The Fiscal Control and Internal Auditing Act
(30 ILCS 10/3001) requires agencies establish internal fiscal and administrative controls to
provide assurance that revenues, expenditures, and transfers of assets, resources, or funds
applicable to operations are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation of
accounts and reliable financial and statistical reports and to maintain accountability over the
State's resources. In addition, Statewide Accounting Management System (SAMS)
(Procedure 29.20.10) states the report is to be filed on a quarterly basis and should be
8
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
submitted to the IOC no later than the last day of the month following the last day of the
quarter. SAMS (Procedure 29.20.10) also requires an agency to report all additions to each
asset category that occurred during the quarter being reported.
CcrrAlnission personnel stated that its feyv number of staJ..lf, with significant personnel
turnover closer to year-end; inadequate training on SAMS requirements; and lack of
orientation has resulted in the property control weaknesses.
Failure to maintain accurate property control records increases the potential for fraud and
possible loss or theft of State property and reduces the reliability of statewide property
infonnation. (Finding Code No. 11-1, 09-1)
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Commission strengthen internal controls over recording and reporting
of its equipment. Specifically, the Commission should ensure all equipment items are
timely recorded on its property listing by documenting the date equipment items were
received and added to its property listing. The Commission should also ensure all
equipment items are accurately recorded on the Commission's property records and
reconciled to the C-15s and proper support is maintained to ensw'e completeness and
accuracy ofits property records.
COMMISSION RESPONSE
The Commission agrees that it did not properly maintain controls over the recording and
reporting of its State property. At the end of FYll, key staff left the Commission. The
Director of Communication assumed responsibility for the management of property and
immediately instituted better practices. The Commission believes that it has already
strengthened internal controls over its property by 1) reducing unnecessary property by
returning items to surplus 2) educating ourselves as to the specific requirements of C-15
reports 3) managing donated property with better recordkeeping and 4) creating a more
streamlined method of organizing and recording property.
9
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS
For the Two Years Ended June 30. 2011
11-2. FINDING (Inadequate Controls over Voucher Processing)
The Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) did not maintain
sufficient controls over voucher processing. During testing, we noted the following:
• The Commission did not document the date of receipt ofthe invoices in 11 of 144 (8%)
vouchers tested.
• The Commission did not reconcile its monthly expenditures with the Office of the
Comptroller's (IOC) Monthly Appropriation Status Report (SB01) during Fiscal Year
2010 and Fiscal Year 2011. The Commission expended $919.817 and $805.291 in
Fiscal Year 2010 and Fiscal Year 2011. respectively.
The Statewide Accounting Management System (SAMS) (procedure 17.20.45) requires
agencies to maintain written records reflecting the date the proper bill was received by the
agency. In addition, SAMS (procedure 11.40.20) requires agencies to reconcile its
expenditures monthly in a timely manner and report any discrepancies to the IOC.
Commission personnel stated that its few number of staff, with significant personnel
tUi'nover closer to year-end; inadequate training on SAMS requirements; and lack of
orientation has resulted in the voucher processing weaknesses.
Failure to document the date of receipt of the invoices resulted in noncompliance with
SAMS procedure. Failure to perfonn monthly expenditure reconciliations could result in
untimely detection oferrors or unauthorized expenses. (Finding Code No. 11-2)
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Commission strengthen internal controls over its voucher processing.
COMMISSION RESPONSE
The Commission agrees that it did not properly maintain controls over voucher processing.
At the end of FYll, key staff left the Commission. The Director of Communication
assumed responsibility for the management of voucher processing and immediately
instituted better practices. The Commission believes that it has already strengthened
voucher processing. The Director of Communication consistently uses the date stamp to
document the receipt of invoices and has instructed a contractual employee manage monthly
reconciliations. The Commission also plans to add another staff member to assume this
responsibility on a more pennanent basis. Since the Director of Communication has
assumed responsibility for voucher processing. every voucher has been processed within the
mandated parameters.
10
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVAnON COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
11-3. FINDING (Inadequate Controls over Receipts Processing)
The Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) did not maintain
sufficient controls over receipts processing. During testing, we noted the following:
• The Commission did not maintain a cash receipt log containing the minimwn detail and
supporting documentation as required.
• There were no copies of the checks maintained, copies of receipts given for
promotional sales or copies of the deposit receipts for 22 of 22 (l00%) receipts tested,
totaling $16,930.
• For 12 of 22 (55%) of receipts tested, totaling $2,768, the Commission failed to
complete and submit a Receipt Deposit Transmittal (ROn form to the Office of the
Comptroller (lOC).
• The cash receipt log recorded refunds and miscellaneous receipts iuto one category.
The auditors could not distinguish the miscellaneous receipts from the refunds in order
to detennine whether the refunds were recorded correctly in the accounting records.
• The Commission did not reconcile cash receipts to the IOC's Monthly Cash Status
Report (SB04).
The State Officers and Employees Money Disposition Act (30 ILCS 23012(a)) requires each
agency to keep in proper books a detailed itemized account of all moneys received,
including the date ofreceipt, the source or payor, the purpose and the amount of the receipt.
The State Records Act (5 ILCS 160/9) requires agencies to establish and maintain a
program for agency records management, which shall include effective controls over
maintenance of records. Good business practice requires copies of original documents,
such as checks, to be retained to ensure the safeguarding of assets and the accuracy and
reliability of accounting data. In addition, monies received by an agency in any other
form, such as a personal check, must first be deposited into the Treasurer's Clearing
Account so that a Treasurer's Draft may be issued and submitted to the IOC. If cash is
received, it should be deposited at a fInancial institution and a receipted deposit ticket should
be used to deposit on the appropriate IOC's document. Submission of receipts to the IOC
may be accomplished by following Procedure 25.20.10 in the Statewide Accounting
Management System (SAMS) manual. SAMS (Procedure 25.20.20) states refunds, which
represent the recovery of expenditures, are segregated for State accounting purposes; while
miscellaneous receipts are coded accordingly as current year's receipts. In addition, SAMS
(Procedure 25.40.20) describes a method which can be used to reconcile receipt records
maintained by the Commission with the records maintained by the IOC.
Commission personnel stated that its few nwnber of staff, with significant personnel
turnover closer to year-end; inadequate training on SAMS requirements; and lack of
orientation has resulted in the receipts processing weaknesses.
11
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
Failure to maintain adequate or minimum information on receipts resulted in noncompliance
with the State mandate. Failure to properly record and report receipts and refunds may
result in incorrect accounting records. Failure to reconcile monthly receipts with
Comptroller's reports may result in errors not detected timely and could result in an
overstatement or understatement offunds available. (Finding Code No. 11-3)
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Commission strengthen its internal controls over receipts processing.
COMMISSION RESPONSE
The Commission agrees that it did not properly maintain controls over receipts processing.
The Commission will take greater measures to strengthen controls over receipts processing.
At the end ofthe last fiscal year, key staff left the agency. The Director ofHistory Programs
has agreed to asSll.'11e responsibility for receipts precessing and will gain proper education
regarding the requirements and best practices to process income. With the correct
knowledge, the Commission will work to correct the issues in this finding.
12
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
PRIOR FINDINGS NOT REPEATED
For the Two Years Ended June 30,2011
A. FINDING (Inadequate segregation ofduties)
During the previous period, the Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission
(Commission) did not maintain adequate segregation of duties in the areas of personal
services, expenditure control, and State property,
During the current period, we noted the Commission segregated duties in the areas of
personal services, expenditure control, and State property. (Finding Code No. 09-2)
B. FINDING (Incomplete policies and procedures in place)
During the previous period, the Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission
(Commission) did not have personnel policies and procedures in place addressing work
hours, work schedules, and attendance. In addition, the Commission did not have a
method in place to determine employees worked during reported hours and no method to
track where employees should be at any point in time.
During the current period, we noted the Commission adopted policies and procedures on
work hours, work schedules, and attendance. In addition, the Commission incorporated a
method to track if employees worked during reported hours and the location of employees.
(Finding Code No. 09-3)
13
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR STATE COMPLIANCE PURPOSES
SUMMARY
Supplementary Information for State Compliance Purposes presented in this section of
the report includes the following:
• Fiscal Schedules and Analysis:
Schedule of Appropriations, Expenditures and Lapsed Balances
Comparative Schedule ofNet Appropriations, Expenditures
and Lapsed Balances
Schedule of Changes in State Property
Comparative Schedule of Receipts
Reconciliation Schedule of Cash Receipts to Deposits Remitted to the
State Comptroller
Analysis of Significant Variations in Expenditures
Analysis of Significant Variations in Receipts
Analysis of Significant Lapse Period Spending
o Analysis of Operations:
Commission Functions and Planning Program
Average Number of Employees
Service Efforts and Accomplishments (Not Examined)
The accountants' report that covers the Supplementary Information for State Compliance
Purposes presented in the Compliance Report Section states the auditors have applied certain
limited procedures as prescribed by the Audit Guide as adopted by the Auditor General, except
for infonnation on the Service Efforts and Accomplishments on which they did not perform any
procedures. However, the accountants do not express an opinion on the supplementary
information.
14
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVAnON COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF APPROPRIATIONS, EXPENDITURES AND LAPSED BALANCES
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011
P.A. 96-0956
FISCAL YEAR 2011
Appropriations
(Net of
Transfers)
Expenditures
Through June 30
Lapse Period
Expenditures
July 1 to
August 31
Total
Expenditures
14 Months Ended
August 31
Balances
Lapsed
August 31
Supreme Court Historic Preservation Fund - 428
......
U\
Historic Preservation
Total Fiscal Year 2011
$
$
10,000,000
10,000,000
$ 889,200
$ 889,200
$
$
35,540
35,540
$ 924,740
$ 924,740
$ 9,075,260
$ 9,075,260
Note: Appropriations, expenditures, and lapsed balances were obtained from the State Comptroller and have been reconciled to
records ofthe Commission.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVAnON COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF APPROPRIATIONS, EXPENDITURES AND LAPSED BALANCES
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010
Lapse Period Total
Appropriations Expenditures Expenditures Balances
P.A. 96-0042 (Net of Expenditures July 1 to 14 Months Ended Lapsed
FISCAL YEAR 2010 Transfers) Through June 30 Au.gust 31 August 31 August 31
Supreme Court Historic Preservation Fund - 428
Historic Preservation $ 10,000,000 $ 755,] 75 $ 50,2] 7 $ 805,392 $ 9,194,608
......
0'\ Total Fiscal Year 2010 $ 10,000,000 $ 755,175 $ 50,217 $ 805,392 $ 9,194,608
Note: Appropriations, expenditures, and lapsed balances were obtained from the State Comptroller and have been
reconciled to records ofthe Commission.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF NET APPROPRIATIONS, EXPENDITURES AND
LAPSED BALANCES
For the Two Years Ended June 30,
2011 2010 2009
Supreme Court Historic Preservation Fund - 428 P.A. 96-0956 P.A. 96-0042 PA 09-0734
Appropriations
(Net of Transfers) $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000
Expenditures
Historic Preservation $ 924,740 $ 805,392 $ 177,318
Total Expenditures $ 924,740 $ 805,392 $ 177,318
Lapsed Balances $ 9,075,260 $ 9,194,608 $ 9,822,682
17
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN STATE PROPERTY
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
Equipment
Balance at July 1.; 2009 $59,562
Additions 87,617
Deletions
Net Transfers 1,479
Balance at June 30,2010 $148,658
Balance at July 1,2010 $148,658
Additions 15,997
Deletions
Net Transfers
Balance at June 30, 2011 $164,655
Note: The above schedule has been derived from property records of the Commission. The
above balance at July 1, 2009 was adjusted by the Commission in an attempt to correct
errors found during the prior examination period. However, we were not able to reconcile
to the Comptroller due to certain errors noted in the Commission property records (see
Finding Code No. 11-1).
18
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS
For the Two Years Ended June 30,
2011 2010 2009
Supreme Court Historic Preservation Fund· 428
Private Organization or Individual $ 808 $ 13,445 $
Product Sales 781
Miscellaneous 1,896
TOTAL RECEIPTS $ 808 $ 16,122 $
Note: The above schedule has been derived from receipt records of the Commission.
19
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECONCILIATION SCHEDULE OF CASH RECEIPTS
TO DEPOSITS REMITTED TO THE STATE COMPTROLLER
For the Two Years Ended June 30~
2011 2010
Supreme Court Historic Preservation Fund - 428
Receipts per Conunission Records $ 808 $ 16,122
Add: Deposits in Transit, Beginning of Year
Less: Deposits in Transit, End of Year
Deposits not submitted to Comptroller (808) (1,960)
Deposits Recorded by the Comptroller $ $ 14,162
Note: The above schedule has been derived from receipt records ofthe Commission.
20
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICA..~TVARIATIONS IN EXPENDITURES
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
FISCAL YEAR 2010
The increase in expenditures was due to the Commission experiencing a full year's expenditures
compared to only three months worth of expenditures in FY09.
FISCAL YEAR 2011
The increase in expenditures in FYl1 was due to a new contract with the University of Illinois for
students to complete an internship with the Commission.
21
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS IN RECEIPTS
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS IN RECEIPTS BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS
2011 AND 2010
Supreme Court Historic Preservation Fund ~ 428
Private Organization or Individual
The decrease in Private Organization or Individual receipts during FYI1 was due to a reduction in
donations received during FYII.
Product Sales
The decrease in Product Sales receipts during FYI I was due to a lack of recording the source of the
receipts collected by the Commission.
Miscellaneous
The decrease in Miscellaneous receipts during FYll was due to a lack of recording the source of
the receipts collected by the Commission.
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS IN RECEIPTS BETWEEN FISCAL YEARS
2010 AND 2009
Supreme Court Historic Preservation Fund· 428
The increase in receipts during FYI 0 was due to it being the first year the Commission sold items
and collected donations from organizations and individuals.
22
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT LAPSE PERIOD SPENDING
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
FISCAL YEAR 2010
There was no significant lapse period spending noted during FYI O.
FISCAL YEAR 2011
There was no significant lapse period spending noted during FYI1.
23
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONS
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
FUNCTIONS AND PLANNING PROGRAM
The Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) was created by the Supreme
Court Historic Preservation Act (705 ILCS 17/et seq.). The Commission consists of nine
conurllssioners. The Administrative Director of the Illinois Courts serves as a commissioner ex
officio and the Illinois Supreme Court, the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives each appoint two commissioners. Commissioners serve staggered
four year terms. A schedule ofcommissioners as of June 30, 2011 is as follows:
Commissioner
Cynthia Cobbs
Kim Fox
Michael McClain
Pauline Montgomery
Joseph Power, Jr.
William Quinlan
Jane Hayes Radar
Jerold Solovy
James Thompson
John Simon
Term Expires
Ex Officio
6/30/13
6/30/11
6/30/11
6/30/13
6/30/11
6/30/13
1/18/11
6/30/13
6/30/11
Under the Supreme Court Historic Preservation Act (705 ILCS 17/15), the Commission is required
to assist and advise the Supreme Court in regard to the acquisition, collection, documentation,
preservation, cataloging, and related matters with respect to historic aspects of buildings, objects,
artifacts, documents, and information, regardless of form, relating to the Illinois judiciary.
Planning Program
The Commission's goals are its functions as defmed by State statute. The Commission has
identified further short-term goals as education of the public at various levels ofinterest, expertise,
and contact with the legal system; providing venues for public events; developing a research
program; preservation of buildings and collections; and acquiring materials which will help
educate and preserve judicial history.
24
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
For the Two Years Ended June 30,
AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
The following table, prepared from Agency records, presents the average number of employees, by
function, for the Fiscal Years ended June 30,
Position 2011 2010 2009
Executive Director 1 1 1
Director ofAdministration 0 1 1
Director ofOutreach 0 1 1
ChiefFiscal Officer 1 0 0
Total average full-time employees 2 3 3
25
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT mSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SERVICF: EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
For the Two Years Ended June 30, 2011
(Not Examined)
The Supreme Court Historic Preservation Commission (Commission) received significant
donations of items, including a large scrapbook collection of a Supreme Court justice from the
1930s, court-related artifacts, and a complete set of Illinois statute books (two of which were
signed by Supreme Court justices). These collections are being conserved and preserved.
The Commission has increased the infonnation available on its website, including online exhibits.
The Commission partnered with the University of Illinois College of Law and hosted a standard
exhibit on Early Illinois Women and the Law. The staff has also engaged in creating and
distributing publications that highlight judicial history. Commission staff members have made
numerous public presentations to bar associations and other organizations to make the Illinois
public aware of its judicial history and its civic engagement.
26