OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, N.W.

Suite 940

Washington, D.C.

May 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUBJECT PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................... 1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION..................................... 8

AUDITS................................................................................... 10

AUDIT FOLLOW-UP............................................................... 15

INVESTIGATIONS.................................................................. 25

ADDITIONAL OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ACTIVITY......................................................................... 26

ECIE AND PCIE ACTIVITY..................................................... 28

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.............................................. 30

TABLE I - QUESTIONED COSTS........................................... 31

TABLE II - FUNDS PUT TO BETTER USE............................. 32

TABLE III - SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OUTSTANDING

FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS....................... 33

FEC/OIG STRATEGIC PLAN................................................... 34

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL HOTLINE...................... 35

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report is submitted pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 

1978, as amended, and includes a summary of the Office of Inspector 

General’s (OIG) activities for the period October 1, 1999 through March 31, 

2000. 

During this reporting period, follow-up work was conducted on 

three audits and two audits were initiated. The first audit entitled, 

Procurement Operations, is being conducted to determine whether the 

FEC has an effective and efficient procurement system in place and whether 

the procurement system complies with statutory and regulatory 

requirements applicable to the FEC. The second audit entitled, Agency 

Controls Governing the Process for Procurement of Vendor Training 

Services, is assessing the adequacy of FEC’s control procedures for acquiring 

outside vendor training and to assess the economy, efficiency and 

effectiveness of the management process currently in place to acquire vendor 

administered training. The audits and follow-up work are summarized 

below: 

Audit of Procurement Operations - OIG-00-03, is currently in 

progress. The primary objectives of this audit are to 1) determine 

whether the Commission has an efficient and effective procurement 

system in place; and 2) determine whether the Commission’s 

procurement process complies with statutory and regulatory 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 1 
requirements. The OIG intends to determine whether the Commission 

has implemented the key acquisition reforms contained in the Federal 

Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994. The audit will involve 

steps such as interviews and review of records in order to achieve the 

audit objectives. It is anticipated that this report will be released 

during the next reporting period. Further details concerning this audit 

are discussed in the Audit section of this report. 

Audit of Controls Governing the Process for Procurement of 

Vendor Training Services - OIG-00-01, is also in progress. The field 

work has been completed and the draft report is being finalized. The 

primary objective of this audit is to assess economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness of management controls governing the procurement of 

training services obtained from outside vendors. The audit has 

included interviewing agency staff, analyzing training records and 

reviewing training related financial information. Additional 

information pertaining to this audit are discussed in the Audit section. 

Follow-up work on the Audit of the Commission’s Management 

of Computer Software - OIG-98-05, was conducted during this 

reporting period. The original audit was released March 1999, with 

initial follow-up work completed during the last reporting period. The 

primary objectives of the audit were to 1) verify that the Commission’s 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 2 
computer software is in compliance with applicable copyright laws and 

Commission policies and procedures; 2) determine that adequate 

policies and procedures are in place to prevent unauthorized software 

use by Commission employees; and 3) ensure that adequate controls 

are in place to detect and prevent computer viruses. One finding and 

three audit recommendations were contained in the original report. 

One recommendation was closed during the initial follow-up work. 

The follow-up work consisted of numerous meetings, the inspection of 

documents and the review of records in order to determine whether 

corrective action had been taken to resolve the remaining 

recommendations. Based on our review of documents, and 

correspondence with the Data Systems Development Division (DSDD) 

staff, we found that DSDD has resolved the two remaining audit 

recommendations. Details of the follow-up work are discussed in the 

Audit Follow-up section of this report. 

Follow-up work on the Audit of the Management of Desktop and 

Laptop Computers (Computer Inventory) - OIG-97-03, was 

completed during this reporting period. The audit was originally 

released in January 1998, with initial follow-up work conducted during 

the prior six months. The primary objectives of the audit were to 1) 

identify and evaluate the adequacy of internal controls over desktop 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 3 
and laptop computers; and 2) evaluate the procedures in place to 

ensure that computer equipment having an acquisition cost over 

$5,000 is capitalized and that there is documentation to support the 

unit cost of computers under $5,000. Two recommendations were 

contained in the original report. The previous follow-up work reflected 

that while some progress had been made by DSDD, additional steps 

were needed to enable the OIG to close the recommendations. 

During the follow-up work conducted this period, documents and 

computer equipment were inspected by the OIG. Several meetings 

were held with division staff to clarify outstanding issues. These steps 

were taken to determine whether or not corrective action had been 

completed to implement the outstanding audit recommendations. 

Based on our work, we concluded that the DSDD had satisfactorily 

implemented the two outstanding recommendations. The Audit 

Follow-up section contains further information concerning this report. 

Follow-up work on the Audit of the Review of the Commission’s 

Employee Appraisal Process - OIG-97-02, was conducted during the 

last six months. The original audit was released January 1998, with 

follow-up work being conducted over the prior two reporting periods. 

The primary objectives of the audit were to 1) determine whether the 

Commission’s Employee Appraisal Process was in compliance with 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 4 
applicable Federal regulations and Commission Personnel Instructions; 

and 2) determine whether the Commission’s monetary incentive 

process is in compliance with applicable Federal regulations and 

Commission Personnel Instructions. 

The original report contained four audit recommendations. The followup work conducted during the previous reporting periods revealed that 

only one recommendation had been implemented. 

The follow-up work completed during this reporting period reflected 

the progress the Personnel Office has made in implementing two of the 

three remaining recommendations. Details concerning these issues 

are discussed in the Audit Follow-up section of this report. 

The OIG also continued to monitor the Commission’s progress in 

addressing its Y2K responsibilities. The primary objective of this effort was 

to keep the Commission informed of reported progress of the FEC’s Y2K 

renovation project. The ability to deliver critical public services at the turn of 

the century was of extreme importance to the FEC. During an open session 

in November, the Chairman of the FEC asked the OIG to discuss the 

agency’s progress in the renovation of its computer technology to be Y2K 

compliant. This was the second public session held on this issue. The 

Commissioners were particularly concerned about the degree of assurance 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 5 
that the agency’s Y2K project team could provide for ensuring that the 

computer systems and related technology were prepared for January 1, 2000. 

In addition, the Commission wanted to know how project management was 

ensuring that agency contractors and vendors, who report their products and 

services as Y2K compliant; were in fact, compliant. Details regarding the 

OIG’s role in monitoring the FEC’s Y2K progress is located in the Audit 

section of this report. 

The OIG participated in a project in which we provided input on the 

redesign of the FEC’s Web site. The primary purpose of the revamped Web 

site was to reorganize the material therein to offer the most efficient 

presentation of relevant and appropriate information to various audiences, 

including the general public, candidates, and the media. 

Items available on the newly designed Web site include images of 

campaign finance reports from candidates for the United States House of 

Representatives, from Presidential campaigns, and from most other political 

committees. In addition, the FEC’s Web site hosts the OIG’s Web pages 

where we post copies of our audit reports and semiannual reports to 

Congress. 

The OIG also reviewed and commented on a draft publication 

compiled by the Public Disclosure Division titled Federal Campaign Finance 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 6 
Reports Online: A Guide to Using the FEC Web Site. The guide is intended 

to be used by state offices which participate in the State Waiver Program to 

assist users in the navigation of the Web site and retrieval of information. 

Three cash counts of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) imprest 

fund were performed during this reporting period. Additional information on 

these last three projects can be found in the Additional Office of the 

Inspector General Activity section of this report. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 7 
THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent, regulatory 

agency responsible for administering and implementing the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (FECA). The FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are 

appointed for six year terms by the President of the United States, with the 

advice and consent of the Senate. The FECA likewise established the 

positions of Staff Director and General Counsel, who are appointed by the 

Commissioners. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The Federal Election Commission is one of the thirty-three designated 

agencies required to have an Inspector General under the 1988 amendments 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978 (P.L. 100-504). 

The responsibilities of the Inspector General as stated in P.L. 100-504 

are as follows: 

o conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating 

to the Federal Election Commission’s programs and 

operations; 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 8 
o provide leadership, coordination, and to recommend 

policies for activities designed to promote economy, 

efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of 

Commission programs and operations. To prevent and 

detect fraud, waste and abuse in these programs and 

operations, and; 

o keep the Commissioners and Congress fully and currently 

informed about problems and deficiencies and the need for 

and progress of corrective actions. 

The OIG staffing level for FY 2000 is 4 FTE. The staff consists of the 

Inspector General, the Special Assistant to the Inspector General and two 

Senior Auditors. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 9 
AUDITS 

TITLE: Audit of Procurement Operations

ASSIGNMENT #: 00-03

RELEASE DATE: In Progress

PURPOSE: The primary objectives of this audit are to 1)

determine whether the Commission has an efficient and effective

procurement system in place; and 2) determine whether the Commission’s

procurement process complies with statutory and regulatory requirements.

The OIG has undertaken an audit of the Commission’s procurement 

process for several reasons. First, the Commission’s procurement activities 

have not been audited by the OIG since 1992 and changes in procedures, FEC 

staff, and acquisition regulations necessitate a review. In addition, the 

Administrative division reported the occurrence of unauthorized procurement 

actions in late 1999 which the OIG believes should be reviewed to determine 

the cause and provide solutions to prevent the reoccurrence. Lastly, a 1999 

management review by an external audit firm, which was mandated by law, 

identified possible internal control weaknesses in the FEC’s procurement 

system. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 10 
Audits (continued) 

The OIG intends to determine whether the Commission has 

implemented the key acquisition reforms contained in the Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994. FASA provided several important tools to 

improve the acquisition of goods and services in the Federal government. For 

example, FASA encouraged the increased use of purchase cards and 

simplified acquisition procedures to result in a less complex and faster 

purchasing process. The audit will also include a review of internal controls 

to ensure sound management practices are in place. 

The audit will include interviews of Commission staff, review of 

procurement policies and procedures, examination of purchase 

documentation, and other audit steps necessary to achieve the audit 

objectives. The OIG anticipates the completion of the audit and release of 

the report during the next reporting period. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 11 
Audits (continued) 

TITLE: Audit of Agency Controls Governing the 

Process for Procurement of Vendor Training 

Services 

ASSIGNMENT #: 00-01 

RELEASE DATE: In Progress 

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this audit is to assess the 

economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the management controls governing 

the procurement of training services obtained from outside vendors. 

The audit has included interviewing agency staff, analyzing training 

records and examining agency-wide records pertaining to the procurement of 

vendor training services. To obtain a perspective on the adequacy of 

management controls, we used OMB Directives and Federal regulations. 

We have limited the scope of the audit to vendor training acquired 

through outside contractors for individual staff or groups. “In-house” 

training developed and administered by and for agency staff is not included. 

The field work has been completed and the report is in the draft stage. The 

final report will be released during the next reporting period. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 12 
Audits (continued) 

TITLE: Agency Year 2000 Renovations 

ASSIGNMENT #: 98-08 

RELEASE DATE: May 1999 

(audit report) 

PURPOSE: Issuance of our original audit report did not end 

OIG involvement in the Y2K area. We continued to monitor the 

Commission’s progress in addressing its Y2K responsibilities. During an open 

session in November, the Chairman of the FEC asked the OIG to discuss the 

agency’s progress in the renovation of its computer technology. Special 

emphasis were placed on two priority areas: 1) systems that provide and 

receive electronic data from outside parties; and 2) core business functions 

that rely on computer processed data. 

We also immediately followed up and tracked the agency’s progress in 

implementing the nine recommendations contained in the original audit 

report. The OIG observed testing of the FEC FAXLINE System for Y2K 

compliance and attended the FEC Y2K contingency planning meeting of 

Division Directors. A meeting was held with the Y2K project team regarding 

OIG review of FEC embedded chip technology for Y2K compliance. The OIG 

also met with the FEC Contracting Officer regarding FEC computer service 

contracts, subsequently analyzing documents for on-going Y2K evaluation. 

In addition, we prepared an advisory memorandum analyzing the Data 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 13 
Audits (continued) 

Systems Development Division memorandum regarding agency-wide staff 

involvement in Y2K contracts. 

The OIG continued to be active in this area throughout the duration of 

the project. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 14 
AUDIT FOLLOW-UP 

TITLE: Audit of the Commission’s Management of 

Computer Software 

ASSIGNMENT #: 98-05 

RELEASE DATE: March 1999 

(audit report) 

PURPOSE: The audit follow-up was conducted to determine 

whether corrective action had been taken by management to resolve the two 

audit recommendations contained in the audit report. The original audit 

report was released on March 31, 1999, with prior follow-up work completed 

during the previous reporting period. 

The primary objectives of the audit were to 1) verify that Commission 

computer software was in compliance with applicable copyright laws and 

Commission policies and procedures; 2) determine that adequate policies and 

procedures were in place to prevent unauthorized software use by 

Commission employees; and 3) ensure that adequate controls were in place to 

detect and prevent computer viruses. 

The original audit included a review of computer software programs 

installed on Commission computers to ensure that software complied with 

applicable software copyright laws and Commission policies and procedures. 

The OIG reviewed the Commission’s policies and procedures related to 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 15 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

computer software to determine whether adequate policies were in place to 

prevent unauthorized software use by employees. Lastly, a review of the 

Commission’s anti-virus software system was performed to ensure adequate 

controls were in place to detect and prevent computer viruses. 

The original audit report contained one audit finding that controls 

needed to be strengthened to ensure the Commission’s computers are 

adequately protected against computer viruses. Two recommendations were 

directed to the Data Systems Development Division (DSDD) and one was 

directed to the Accounting Office. 

During the last reporting period, the OIG conducted a follow-up of this 

audit. We found that the Accounting Office had implemented procedures to 

ensure that computers located in that office were adequately protected 

against computer viruses, subsequently closing that audit recommendation. 

The other two recommendations remained open. 

In follow-up work conducted during this reporting period, the OIG 

concluded that the written guidelines issued by DSDD to Commission staff 

on procedures required to protect Commission computers from the potential 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 16 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

damage and disruption caused by computer viruses were sufficient to close 

that recommendation. 

The remaining recommendation dealt with ensuring that antivirus software and the current virus data files are installed on all PCs and 

laptops. The OIG’s follow-up work to determine whether the DSDD had 

adequately protected Commission computers involved the physical inspection 

of several randomly selected PCs and laptops. The OIG found that the 

DSDD had implemented the recommendations by installing anti-virus 

software on computers or by taking other protective measures to guard 

against computer viruses. 

The OIG has concluded that DSDD accomplished the necessary 

steps to close all recommendations. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 17 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

TITLE: Audit of the Commission’s Management of 

Desktop and Laptop Computers 

ASSIGNMENT # 97-03 

RELEASE DATE: January 1998 

(audit report) 

PURPOSE: The purpose of conducting this audit follow-up was 

to determine whether management had taken corrective action to resolve the 

two audit recommendations contained in the report. The original audit 

report was released on January 14, 1998, with initial follow-up work 

conducted in the prior six months. 

The primary objectives of this audit were to 1) identify and evaluate 

the adequacy of internal controls over desktop and laptop computers; and 2) 

evaluate the procedures in place to ensure that computer equipment having 

an acquisition cost over $5,000 is capitalized and computer equipment with 

unit costs under $5,000 are supported. 

The audit was designed to address the adequacy of the FEC’s 

management of desktop and laptop computers and the accuracy and 

reliability of inventory listings which are used by the FEC to assess needs, 

support procurement action and manage and service the equipment. The 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 18 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

audit also included a review of the adequacy of internal procedures used to 

identify and capitalize automated data processing (ADP) equipment. Manual 

or automated accounting procedures must ensure that all equipment with an 

acquisition cost over $5,000 must be capitalized and reported to the U.S. 

Department of Treasury. Equipment under $5,000 is expensed and reported 

as such to Treasury. 

The audit included two recommendations to improve the management 

of ADP equipment. First, the OIG recommended that divisions take an 

annual physical inventory of laptop computers and forward the results to the 

Data Systems Development Division (DSDD) to be reconciled with the 

DSDD’s inventory database. The OIG recommended that the DSDD be 

responsible for documenting the results of the inventory on an annual basis. 

Second, the OIG recommended that written policies and procedures be 

established for the accountability and control of personal computer property. 

The OIG recommended that the policies and procedures be disseminated to 

all agency personnel engaged in personal property management functions 

and that appropriate policies, procedures, and training be provided to 

involved personnel. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 19 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

In an audit follow-up conducted last reporting period, the OIG 

concluded that the laptop computer inventory list documented by the DSDD 

did not include all Commission laptops. The DSDD neglected to include in 

the inventory list Commission owned laptops which had been retired and 

placed in storage rooms. Therefore, the OIG was unable to close that 

recommendation. 

The audit follow-up work during this period consisted of the inspection 

of documents and computer equipment by the OIG. Several meetings with 

management were necessary to ascertain if corrective action to resolve the 

audit recommendations had been taken. 

The OIG contacted the DSDD to determine whether an 

inventory of laptop computers had been completed. After reviewing the 

inventory list provided by DSDD, the OIG discovered the list was incomplete. 

After discussion, the DSDD provided the OIG with a revised inventory list 

which, after review, the OIG confirmed that DSDD had satisfactorily 

implemented the recommendation. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 20 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

The OIG also contacted DSDD to determine whether or not revised 

written procedures were provided to management with guidance on lost, 

stolen, and obsolete computer equipment. The DSDD provided the OIG with 

documentation which incorporated the necessary procedures. The OIG 

believes the policies and procedures provided important guidance on the 

management and accountability of computer equipment, resulting in this 

recommendation being closed. 

The OIG found that the DSDD implemented the recommendations by 

conducting a physical inventory of laptop computers and issuing written 

policies and procedures on the management of desktop and laptop computers 

to division heads resulting in the closing of the two audit recommendations 

contained in the original audit report. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 21 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

TITLE: Audit of the Review of the Commission’s 

Employee Appraisal Process 

ASSIGNMENT # 97-02 

RELEASE DATE: January 1998 

(audit report) 

PURPOSE: During this reporting period, the OIG continued to 

follow-up on the status of the recommendations contained in the original 

audit report to address weaknesses in the Commission’s employee appraisal 

process. The primary objectives of our audit were to 1) determine whether 

the Commission’s employee appraisal process was in compliance with 

applicable Federal regulations and Commission Personnel Instructions; and 

2) determine whether the Commission’s monetary incentive process was in 

compliance with applicable Federal regulations and Commission Personnel 

Instructions. 

The audit addressed compliance with the Commission’s Personnel 

Instructions and Federal regulations as they related to the employee 

appraisal process. The audit included a review of employee performance 

folders and performance plans. In addition, the audit included a review of 

performance and incentive awards to verify that the awards were granted in 

accordance with Commission policy and Federal regulations and processed in 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 22 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

a timely manner. Four recommendations were made in the report to correct 

the weaknesses found in the Commission’s performance appraisal process. 

The OIG conducted the first follow-up in March of 1999. The OIG 

reviewed personnel documents and interviewed Personnel Office staff to 

determine whether management had implemented the four recommendations 

contained in the original audit report. The OIG concluded that although 

some action had been taken to correct the weaknesses identified by the OIG, 

the actions were not sufficient enough to resolve the audit findings. 

A second follow-up was conducted in September of 1999, and the 

OIG concluded that management had implemented the recommendation 

dealing with the retention of employee performance documents . That 

recommendation was closed. However, the OIG concluded that management 

had not adequately resolved the three outstanding recommendations. 

The OIG’s most recent follow-up review has resulted in the closure of 

two more recommendations. The OIG found that the Personnel Office 

developed a system to track the timeliness of appraisals, which includes a 

notification process to alert management of late appraisals. In addition, the 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 23 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

Personnel Office developed procedures to ensure reviewing officials review 

employee appraisals before the appraisal is issued to the employee. 

The OIG recognizes that the Personnel Office is beginning to 

address the deficient performance standards. Performance standards or 

plans are used to evaluate employees on an annual basis. The standards 

contain both critical and non-critical job elements and should include at least 

two expectation levels. In order to close this recommendation, the Personnel 

Office should ensure employee performance standards are written in 

accordance with the CFR and Commission policy. To correct the performance 

standards, we believe a Commission-wide effort is necessary, requiring the 

participation of Commission supervisors with guidance and oversight 

provided by the Personnel Office. 

This recommendation will remain open. We will continue to 

monitor the progress of the Personnel Office’s actions to address this 

outstanding recommendation. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 24 
INVESTIGATIONS 

No new investigations were opened during this reporting period. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 25
ADDITIONAL OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ACTIVITY 

All legislation, as compiled by the Commission’s Congressional Affairs 

Office, was reviewed by the Inspector General, as required by the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended. The Inspector General also routinely reads 

all Commission agenda items and attends Finance Committee Meetings. 

During this reporting period, the OIG participated in a project in 

which input was provided on the redesign of the FEC’s Web site. The 

primary purpose of the Web site is to provide information and material in an 

efficient and convenient manner to the general public, candidates, and the 

media. The FEC’s Web site is used by the OIG to post copies of our audit 

reports and semiannual reports to Congress. 

The OIG recently reviewed and commented on a draft publication 

written by the FEC’s Public Disclosure Division titled Federal Campaign 

Finance Reports Online: A Guide to using the FEC Web Site. The guide is 

intended to be used by state offices which participate in the State Waiver 

Program to assist users in the navigation of the Web site and retrieval of 

information. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 26 
A draft version of the Commission’s invitation policy was also reviewed 

to ensure that the policy is consistent with appropriate laws and regulations. 

The policy was additionally reviewed for efficiency and effectiveness. 

As an ongoing project, the Special Assistant to the Inspector General 

performed three unannounced cash counts of the FEC’s imprest fund (OIG99-04, OIG-00-02, and OIG-00-04). The imprest fund consists of three 

drawers totaling $2,500. The results of the cash counts revealed no overage 

or underage and all cash was accounted for. Our reviews revealed that cash 

disbursements from the imprest fund were reasonable and consistent with 

FEC imprest fund policy. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 27 
ECIE AND PCIE ACTIVITY 

The Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency was established by 

Executive Order on May 11, 1992. It consists of Designated Federal Entity 

Inspectors General and representatives of the Office of Government Ethics, 

the Office of Special Counsel, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

The Inspector General (or staff) attending the following training, 

programs and/or conferences during this reporting period: 

• ECIE - Monthly Meetings 

• PCIE - Professional Development Forum - Electronic Commerce in 

Government 

• PCIE/ECIE - Joint Annual Meeting 

• PCIE/ECIE - Retreat 2000 - The Evolving Role of the Inspector 

General in the New Millennium 

• Institute of Internal Auditors - Windows NT, Managing and 

Controlling your Risks 

• Association of Government Accountants - Annual Federal 

Leadership Conference: Welcome to the New Millennium 

• Inspector General Auditor Training Institute - Fraud Auditing: 

Theory and Application 

• Institute of Internal Auditors - 20th Annual Internal Auditing in 

Government Conference 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 28 
• Information Systems Audit & Control Association - Penetration 

Testing: Accounting & Auditing 

• USDA Graduate School - Federal Government Accounting I 

• Small Agency Council - Leading the Organization 

• Federal Audit Executive Council - Welcome to the 21st Century 

• Association of Directors of Investigation Conference 

• OIG Webmasters Meeting 

• FEC Law Manager Training 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 29 
IG ACT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PAGE 

Reporting requirements required by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended by 

the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 are listed below: 

Section 4(a)(2) Review of Legislation-----------------------------------------------26 

Section 5(a)(1) Significant Problems, Abuses, and 

Deficiencies---------------------------------------------------------None 

Section 5(a)(2) Recommendations with Respect to 

Significant Problems, Abuses, and 

Deficiencies---------------------------------------------------------None 

Section 5(a)(3) Recommendations Included in Previous 

Reports on Which Corrective Action Has 

Not Been Completed-----------------------------------------------33 

Section 5(a)(4) Matters Referred to Prosecutive 

Authorities---------------------------------------------------------None 

Section 5(a)(5) Summary of Instances Where Information 

was Refused-------------------------------------------------------None 

Section 5(a)(6) List of Audit Reports----------------------------------------------10 

Section 5(a)(7) Summary of Significant Reports------------------------------10 

Section 5(a)(8) Questioned and Unsupported Costs-------------------------31 

Section 5(a)(9) Recommendations that Funds be put 

to Better Use--------------------------------------------------------32 

Section 5(a)(10) Summary of Audit Reports issued before 

the start of the Reporting Period for which 

no Management Decision has been made----------------N/A 

Section 5(a)(11) Significant revised Management Decisions-------------N/A 

Section 5(a)(12) Management Decisions with which the 

Inspector General is in Disagreement-------------------None 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 30 
TABLE I 

INSPECTOR 

WITH 

DOLLAR VALUE (in thousands) 

QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED 

NUMBER COSTS COSTS 

GENERAL ISSUED REPORTS 

QUESTIONED COSTS 

A. For which no management 0 0 [0] 

decision has been made by 

commencement of the reporting 

period 

B. Which were issued during the 0 0 [0] 

reporting period 

Sub-Totals (A&B) 0 0 [0] 

C. For which a management 0 0 [0] 

decision was made during 

the reporting period 

(i) Dollar value of disallowed 0 0 [0] 

costs 

(ii) Dollar value of costs 0 0 [0] 

not disallowed 

D. For which no management 0 0 [0] 

decision has been made by the 

end of the reporting period 

E. Reports for which no management 0 0 [0] 

decision was made within 

six months of issuance 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 31 
TABLE II 

INSPECTOR 

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE 

NUMBER DOLLAR VALUE 

(in thousands 

GENERAL ISSUED REPORTS WITH 

A. For which no management 

decision has been made by 

the commencement of the 

reporting period 

B. Which were issued during 

the reporting period 

C. For which a management 

decision was made during 

the reporting period 

(i) dollar value of 

recommendations 

were agreed to by 

management 

based on proposed 

management action 

based on proposed 

legislative action 

(ii) dollar value of 

recommendations 

that were not agreed 

to by management 

D. For which no management 

decision has been made by 

the end of the reporting period 

E. Reports for which no 

management decision 

was made within six months 

of issuance 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 32 
TABLE III 

SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS 

Recommendations 

Audit Report 

Report Issue 

Number Date 

97-02 01/98 

97-03 01/98 

98-05 03/99 

98-08 05/99 

Management 

Response 

Date 

01/98 

03/98 

03/99 

04/99 

Number Closed Open 

4 3 1 

2 2 0 

3 3 0 

9 3 6 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 33 
FEC / OIG Strategic Plan 

OIG Products: To provide products and 

services that promote positive change in 

FEC policies, programs, and operations. 

Objective A: Deliver timely, high-quality 

products and services that promote 

positive change. 

Strategy: 

- establish common OIG standards for communicating 

results; 

- conduct quality assurance programs; 

- solicit appropriate internal and external review and 

comment; 

- comply with applicable statutory guidelines and 

standards; 

- set realistic and appropriate milestones. 

Objective B: Address priority issues and 

concerns of the Commission, Congress, 

and Management. 

Strategy: Perform work that supports; 

- Federal Election Commission and Congressional 

priorities; 

- National Performance Review objectives; 

- Strategic Management Initiative efforts; 

Focus OIG attention in the following areas of emphasis: 

- managing change; 

- resource allocation in relation to policy objectives; 

- delivery of client service; 

- causes of fraud and inefficiency; and, 

- automation and communication. 

Objective C: Follow-up and evaluate 

results of OIG products and services to 

assess their effectiveness in promoting 

positive change. 

Strategy: 

- Identify, as appropriate, lessons learned to improve 

timeliness and quality; and, 

- conduct follow-up reviews to determine if intended 

results have been achieved. 

Objective D: Satisfy customers, 

consistent with the independent nature of 

the OIG. 

Strategy: 

- establish professional communication and interaction 

with customers to promote the open exchange of ideas; 

- incorporate customer feedback, as appropriate; and, 

- be open to customer-generated solutions and 

options. 

Performance Measures: Determine the 

timeliness and quality of products and 

services; their effectiveness in promoting 

positive change; and, reach agreement 

with management on at least 90% of 

recommendations within six months of 

the report issue date. 

OIG Process: To develop and implement 

processes, policies, and procedures to ensure 

the most effective and appropriate use of OIG 

resources in support of our people and products. 

Objective A: Maintain a dynamic strategic 

planning process. 

Strategy: 

- periodically review and update the strategic plan 

address changing OIG and FEC priorities; and, 

-

develop short and long term plans to address them. 

to 

identify factors that influence organizational change and 

Objective B: Plan and conduct costeffective work that address critical issues 

and results in positive change. 

Strategy: 

- solicit FEC and Congressional input in planning OIG 

activities; 

- develop internal planning mechanisms to support FEC 

goals and priorities; 

- ensure that priorities of IG are effectively communicated; 

and, 

- identify specific targets for OIG review that are the most 

cost-effective 

Objective C: Identify customer needs and 

provide products and services to meet 

them. 

Strategy: 

- establish new customer feed back mechanisms; 

- consider and evaluate customers feedback when 

planning and developing products and services; 

- respond to Congressional inquires and request for 

briefing and testimony; 

- promote open exchange of ideas and information through 

outreach and through use of e-mail; and, 

- receive, evaluate, and respond, as appropriate, to 

information received through the OIG hotline and other 

sources. 

Objective D: Implement efficient, effective, 

and consistent resolution and follow-up 

procedures. 

Strategy: 

- ensure that IG follow-up procedures are followed and that 

management is aware of their role in the process; and, 

- establish common OIG standards for terminology, date 

maintenance and communications. 

Objective E: Establish a positive and 

productive working environment. 

Strategy: 

- reengineer or streamline OIG procedures to achieve the 

most effective use of resources; and, 

- ensure that necessary technologies, evolving and 

otherwise, are made available to staff as needed. 

Performance Measures: An annual audit 

plan is issued; strategic plan is periodically 

reviewed; and, necessary technology is 

provided to staff to enable them to most 

efficiently perform their duties. 

OIG Staff: To maintain a skilled and motivated 

work force in an environment that fosters 

accountability, communications, teamwork, and 

personal and professional growth. 

Objective A: Attract and retain well-qualified, 

diverse and motivated employees. 

Strategy: 

- develop and implement a comprehensive recruiting program 

that attracts a broad population with the knowledge, skills, 

abilities, and expertise necessary to make meaningful 

contributions to the OIG; 

- assess employee satisfaction and develop strategies to address 

employee concerns; 

- identify reasons for staff departures and develop plans to foster 

greater staff retention; and, 

- adhere to EEO principles and strive to maintain a diverse work 

force. 

Objective B: Provide training and developmental 

opportunities to employees. 

Strategy: 

- assess training needs in relation not only to employee but also 

office needs as well; 

- ensure that Government Auditing Standards in relation to 

training are adhered to; and, 

- maintain a reporting system to ensure that educational 

requirements are met. 

Objective C: Assess, recognize, and reward, 

when possible, performance that contributes to 

achieving the OIG mission. 

Strategy: 

- develop and articulate expectations for each employee's 

performance, including contributions in meeting the mission & 

goals of the OIG; and, 

- ensure that rewards, when possible, are given in recognition of 

exceptional employee performance. 

Objective D: Create and maintain a working 

environment that promotes teamwork and 

effective communication. 

Strategy: 

- ensure that communications between employees is open; and, 

- provide employees with the tools and incentives they need to 

adequately perform their duties. 

Performance Measures: All employees meet 

the training requirements; all employees have 

performance standards; and, all employees meet 

the basic requirements for the position in which 

they were hired to perform. 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 34 
• 

• 

YOU CAN HELP

REPORT: FRAUD, WASTE OR MISMANAGEMENT 

202-694-1015

OR TOLL FREE

1-800-424-9530

• INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL 

• CALLER CAN REMAIN ANONYMOUS 

OR 

WRITE THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E STREET, N.W., SUITE 940 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

October 1, 1999 - March 31, 2000 Page 35