An official website of the United States government
Here's how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock (
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Brought to you by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Federal Reports
Report Date
Agency Reviewed / Investigated
Report Title
Type
Location
Election Assistance Commission
Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by the Michigan Department of State: May 1, 2003 through February 28, 2009
EAC OIG, through the independent public accounting firm of Clifton Gunderson LLP, audited $94.7 million in funds received by the Michigan Department of State under the Help America Vote Act. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Department of State (1) used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of HAVA in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; (2) accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments and for program income; and (3) met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund and for a matching contribution.
As part of our annual audit plan, we reviewed the process for postponing and cancelling Power System Operations (PSO) capital projects. Our audit objectives were to determine whether fiscal years (FY) 2007 and 2008 project postponements and cancellations were (1) properly approved, (2) effectively communicated, and (3) monitored to prevent inappropriate charges.Based on our review, we determined that PSO's postponed and cancelled projects (1) contained a capital classification designated by Fixed Asset Accounting (FAA), (2) were approved in accordance with Standard Programs and Processes 2.1, and (3) had valid justifications for postponement and/or cancellation. We also noted that project changes were communicated internally using a listing of projects known as the "checkbook," rather than Five Year Project Plans. We determined the use of the checkbook was a reasonable alternative to the Five-Year Project Plan.We also determined that project cancellations required to be communicated to FAA were communicated to FAA in a timely manner. Finally, we noted that while there is no policy governing the splitting of project costs, there is an independent review of project costs performed by Financial Services personnel and an expectation for employees to appropriately charge their time to the specific project(s) they work on.