OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, N.W.

Suite 940

Washington, D.C. 20463

May 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUBJECT PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY------------------------------------------------------------------ 1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION----------------------------------------------- 5

AUDITS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

AUDIT FOLLOW-UP----------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

INVESTIGATIONS-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

ADDITIONAL OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ACTIVITY----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

ECIE AND PCIE ACTIVITY------------------------------------------------------------- 20

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS------------------------------------------------------- 22

TABLE I - QUESTIONED COSTS----------------------------------------------------- 23

TABLE II - FUNDS PUT TO BETTER USE---------------------------------------- 24

TABLE III - SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OUTSTANDING

FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS----------------------------------- 25

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL HOTLINE--------------------------------- 26

OIG STRATEGIC PLAN------------------------------------------------------------------- 27

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 
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, 1998 through March 31, 1999. 

During this reporting period, one audit report and one audit follow-up report 

were released and two cash counts of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) 

imprest fund were conducted. The Office of Inspector General also initiated an 

audit during this reporting period of the Agency Year 2000 Renovations. We are 

conducting this audit to verify whether progress reported by the FEC for resolving 

the Y2K problem, matches its actual state of preparation. The audit will also 

evaluate compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The draft report of the 

audit was released on March 31, 1999. We anticipate releasing the final audit 

report during the next reporting period. The audits and follow-up report are 

summarized below: 

Audit of Commission’s Management of Computer Software - OIG 98-05, 

was released March, 1999. The primary objectives were to 1) verify that the 

Commission’s computer software is in compliance with applicable copyright 

laws and commission policies and procedures; 2) determine that adequate 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 1 
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. During the audit, the OIG performed 

an unannounced inspection of Commission computers. The unannounced 

inspection was based on a random sample of computers. The purpose of the 

inspection was to document the computer software programs installed on 

Commission computers, and to verify that anti-virus software was installed 

and active on the computers. We concluded that adequate policies and 

procedures are in place to prevent unauthorized software use by Commission 

employees. We provided management with several suggestions for 

improvement. Our audit contained one finding and three recommendations 

which are detailed in the audit section of this report. 

A Follow-up report to the audit of the Review of the Commission’s 

Employee Appraisal Process - OIG 97-02, was conducted this reporting 

period. The original audit was released in January, 1998. The primary 

objectives of the 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 is in compliance with 

applicable Federal Regulations and Commission Personnel Instructions. 

Four audit recommendations were contained in the original report. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 2 
Management agreed with all the recommendations made in conjunction with 

the findings. However, after our review we found that the Personnel office 

has not resolved the four audit recommendations. The details of the followup report are discussed in the audit follow-up section of this report. 

Audit of Agency Year 2000 Renovations - OIG 98-08, is currently in 

progress. The primary objectives of this audit are to 1) verify the reported 

progress of the FEC’s Y2K renovation project; and 2) to evaluate compliance 

with applicable laws & regulations. Throughout the audit, we regularly 

updated the Y2K team on all project risk that we identified during our audit 

fieldwork and provided specific recommendations to reduce exposure to those 

risks. We anticipate releasing the audit during the next reporting period. 

Further details concerning this audit are discussed in the audit section of 

this report. 

Our office, along with the Inspector General from the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, conducted a peer review of the Panama Canal 

Commission’s Office of Inspector General. The objectives of the peer review were to 

determine 1) whether or not the audit organization’s internal control system is 

adequate and operating effectively; and 2) whether or not established policies, 

procedures, and applicable Government Auditing Standards are being followed in 

practice. The scope of the review included: 1) reports and working papers for four 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 3 
audits listed in semiannual reports for the October 1, 1997 through September 30, 

1998 period; 2) OIG Audit and Investigative Work Plan and Strategic Plan; 3) job 

descriptions and documents describing auditor experience and training; 4) OIG 

Procedures Manual and 5) employee confirmation of independence statements. 

Additionally, appropriate members of the audit staff were interviewed to verify the 

actual practice of quality control and follow-up procedures. The draft report has 

been issued to the Inspector General of the Panama Canal Commission. 

To enhance the effectiveness of the Office of Inspector General and to ensure 

effective audit coverage of the Commission’s programs and operations, the OIG 

developed a strategic plan covering fiscal year 1999-2004. The OIG strategic plan 

will continue to evolve and will be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure 

maximum effectiveness in meeting the changing needs of the FEC, consistent with 

the OIG’s statutory responsibilities. The Strategic Plan can be found in 

Appendix A. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 4 
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 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, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 5 
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’99 is 4 FTE. The staff consists of the Inspector 

General, the Special Assistant to the Inspector General and two Senior Auditors. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 6 
AUDITS 

TITLE: Audit of the Commission’s Management of Computer 

Software 

ASSIGNMENT #: 98-05 

RELEASE DATE: March, 1999 

PURPOSE: The three objectives of our audit were to: 1) verify that 

Commission 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. 

Our audit examined the management of computer 

software programs installed on Commission computers to 

ensure that software complies with applicable software 

copyright laws and Commission policies and procedures. 

We generally found that the majority of the software 

installed on the Commission computers we inspected was 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 7 
Audits (continued) 

in compliance with applicable software copyright laws. 

However, we did find that unlicensed software was 

installed on Commission computers. We suggested that 

Data Systems Development Division (DSDD) develop an 

adequate record keeping system to ensure that all 

software installed on Commission computers complies 

with copyright laws. DSDD is planning to, or has already 

taken, action to rectify the unlicensed software we found 

installed on several Commission computers. 

We also reviewed the FEC’s policies and procedures 

related to computer software use by employees. The 

purpose of the review was to determine whether adequate 

policies and procedures are in place to prevent 

unauthorized software use by employees. We reviewed 

the FEC’s Directive #58, which contains controls over 

computer software, and inspected the User Computer 

Agreements to determine if all employees have signed the 

agreement to abide by Commission’s policy on computer 

software use. We also conducted an unannounced 

inspection of a sample of Commission computers to 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 8 
Audits (continued) 

determine whether the computer software installed on 

the PC’s was authorized in accordance with Directive #58. 

Overall, we believe adequate policies and procedures are 

in place to prevent unauthorized software use by 

Commission employees. We did provide management 

with several suggestions for improvement. 

We also reviewed the FEC’s anti-virus software system. 

In general, the purpose of the review was to verify that 

the current version of the anti-virus software is installed 

on Commission personal computers. One 

recommendation was made to management. 

TITLE: Audit of Agency Year 2000 Renovations 

ASSIGNMENT #: 98-08 

RELEASE DATE: In Progress 

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

reported progress of the FEC’s Y2K renovation project; 

and 2) to evaluate compliance with applicable laws & 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 9 
Audits (continued) 

regulations. Throughout the audit, we regularly updated the 

Y2K team on all project risk that we identified during our 

audit fieldwork and provided specific recommendations to 

reduce exposure to those risks. 

STATUS: The audit fieldwork is complete and the audit report 

recommendations have been discussed with the 

appropriate agency officials. The draft audit report was 

released March, 1999 for review and written comment by 

officials having management responsibility over the 

issues discussed. The final report is scheduled to be 

released during the next reporting period. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 10 
AUDIT FOLLOW-UP 

TITLE: Review of the Commission’s Employee Appraisal 

Process 

ASSIGNMENT #: 97-02 

RELEASE DATE: January, 1998 

(Audit Report) 

PURPOSE: During this reporting period, the OIG completed the 

follow-up report to the above mentioned audit. The 

primary objectives of the original 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 is in compliance with applicable Federal 

Regulations and Commission Personnel Instructions. The 

original report contained four audit recommendations. 

We inspected Personnel Office documents and 

interviewed Personnel Office staff in order to determine 

whether corrective action had been taken to resolve the 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 11 
Audit Follow-up (continued) 

audit findings and recommendations. Based on our 

review of documents and interviews with staff, we have 

concluded that the Personnel Office has not resolved the 

four audit recommendations contained in the audit report. 

Although we found that some action had been taken by 

the Personnel Office to correct weaknesses cited in our 

report, the action taken was not sufficient to resolve the 

audit findings. 

The four audit recommendations will remain open until 

corrective action has been taken to address the 

weaknesses cited in our audit report. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 12 
INVESTIGATIONS 

No new investigations were opened during this reporting period. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 13
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. 

Recently, questions have been raised in two separate forums regarding the 

independence of Inspectors General in the Designated Federal Entities (DFEs). 

Although Inspectors General have been debating for some time whether to seek 

legislation to enhance their statutory independence, the fact that these questions 

have now been raised outside of the Inspector General community indicates that 

additional attention needs to be given to independence issues. 

The first recently to question the independence of the DFE IGs was the 

Professional Ethics Committee of the American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants (AICPA). That Committee has proposed a revision of its rules that 

would result in DFE IGs being deemed not sufficiently independent to issue audit 

reports under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). Under the proposed 

AICPA definition, the Presidentially-appointed IGs would be treated as independent 

auditors, but the DFE IGs would be treated as “internal auditors” because they are 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 14 
appointed by their agency heads and, therefore, they are considered to be less 

independent. In response, 24 DFE IGs sent a letter challenging the AICPA’s 

proposed revision, and asserting that the manner of an IGs appointment does not 

vest some (Presidentially-appointed) IGs with more independence than others 

(agency-head appointed). 

The second forum, in which the independence of DFE IGs was raised, was a 

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority (FLRA) on an Unfair Labor Practice charge against the Office of 

Inspector General of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). At issue was the 

alleged refusal of an investigator from the NLRB OIG to permit an employee to be 

represented by his union during an investigative interview. This very issue is 

pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in FLRA v. National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of 

Inspector General, 120 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. granted, 119 S. Ct. 

401(1998). Oral argument was heard on March 23, 1999. The ALJ who decided the 

NLRB case, however, concluded that the NLRB OIG case was not necessarily 

dependent on the outcome of the NASA case in the Supreme Court. The ALJ found 

that since the NLRB case involved a DFE IG, and the pending NASA case involved 

a Presidentially appointed IG, the cases were sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish 

them even before the Supreme Court issues its decision. Specifically, 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 15 
the ALJ stated that: 

Unlike the Inspector General in NASA and the Inspectors General of 

other agencies defined by section 11 of the IG Act as “establishments,” 

the Inspector General of the NLRB is appointed by its Chairman, who 

may also remove him or her. Although such removal must be 

explained to Congress, there are no formal limitations on the reasons 

on such action. The Inspector General, therefore, must rely solely on 

political considerations rather than legal standards with respect to the 

security of his or her position. 

NLRB OIG and NLRBU, FLRA Case No. AT-CA-80026 (February 10, 1999), 

at 19. The ALJ went on to state that because a DFE IG serves at the pleasure of 

the agency head, and because of the agency’s role in establishing the OIG’s budget, 

a DFE IG also appears to have somewhat less independence than a Presidentiallyappointed Inspector General. Id at 20. 

Although the DFE IGs have long believed that the intent of the Inspector 

General Act Amendments of 1988 was to establish IGs in the Designated Federal 

Entities who have the same level of independence as Presidentially-appointed IGs, 

it is becoming increasingly apparent that there are significant perceived differences. 

Several legislative proposals pending or soon to be introduced in this Congress 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 16 
directly affect IGs. In the coming months DFE IGs will become more involved in 

working with Congress to address these independence issues. 

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

conducted two unannounced cash counts of the FEC’s imprest fund (#OIG-98-07 

and #OIG-99-01). The imprest fund consists of three drawers totaling $2,500. The 

results of the cash count for assignment #99-01 revealed no overage or underage 

and all cash was accounted for. 

A cash count conducted in November, assignment #98-07, revealed an 

underage of $130.40 in one of the three cash drawers. This was due to a travel 

advance form not being properly filed. The travel advance form was subsequently 

located by the Accounting Office and all cash was accounted for in the form of 

currency, coins and receipts of funds disbursed. In addition, our reviews revealed 

that cash disbursements from the imprest fund were reasonable and consistent 

with FEC imprest fund policy. 

The OIG developed a strategic plan covering fiscal year 1999-2004. The 

purpose of this plan is to enhance the effectiveness of the Office of Inspector 

General and to ensure effective audit coverage of the Commission’s programs and 

operations. Three major categories of OIG-wide goals and objectives have been 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 17 
identified. They are Products, Processes, and Staff. The goals of each are as 

follows: 

OIG Products: 

OIG Processes: 

OIG Staff: 

To provide products and services that promote 

positive change in FEC policies, programs, and 

operations. 

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. 

To maintain a skilled and motivated work force in 

an environment that fosters accountability, 

communications, teamwork, and personal and 

professional growth. 

The OIG will also take into consideration the FEC’s strategic plan in making 

its decision on areas to audit and we will continue the past practice of requesting 

audit ideas from all staff. We feel this will assist the office in addressing the audit 

requirements of its customers. The OIG Strategic Plan can be found at Appendix A. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 18 
The Commission’s Data Systems Development Division (DSDD) agreed to 

host an Internet web page created by the OIG. The OIG web page contains 

electronic copies of completed audits and semiannual reports. The OIG had 

previously utilized the IG community’s IGnet web site to post reports. A link has 

been placed on the IGnet’s web page to redirect Internet users to the OIG’s new web 

page. The OIG’s new web address is http://www.fec.gov/fecig.htm. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 19 
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) attended the following training, programs 

and/or conferences during the last reporting period: 

o PCIE Professional Development Forum - The Government 

Performance Results Act 

o Introduction to Lotus Notes 4.6 

o Audit & Control of Computer Networks 

o Introduction to Form Flow 

o Mail Merge using Microsoft Word 

o Writing for Success 

o Making it in the Millennium - Executive Women in Government 

o The Integrated Audit workshop 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 20 
o Understanding and Auditing the Enterprise Telecommunications 

Environment 

o Live Internet briefing on Internet and Internal Network Intrusion 

detection - “What Hackers Know About your Site” 

o Microsoft Explorer Exposition 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 21 
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-----------------------------------------------14 

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-----------------------------------------------25 

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-----------------------------------------------7 

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

Section 5(a)(8) Questioned and Unsupported Costs-------------------------23 

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

to Better Use--------------------------------------------------------24 

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, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 22 
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, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 23 
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, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 24 
TABLE III 

SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS 

Recommendations 

Audit Report Management 

Report Issue Response 

Number Date Date Number Closed Open 

97-02 01/98 01/98 4 0 4

97-03 01/98 03/98 2 0 2

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 25
YOU CAN HELP 

202-694-1015 

or toll free 

1-800-424-9530 

Report: 

o Information is Confidential 

o Caller Can Remain Anonymous 

or 

Write the Office of Inspector General 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W., Suite 940 

Washington, D.C. 

Fraud, Waste or Mismanagement 

20463 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 26 
Appendix A 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

STRATEGIC PLAN 

FISCAL YEARS

1999 - 2004

Lynne A. McFarland 

Inspector General 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 27 
Inspectors General Vision Statement 

We are agents of positive change striving for continuous improvement in our 

agencies’ management and program operations and in our own offices. 

_____________________________________ 

Statement of Reinvention Principles 

We Will: 

• Work with our agency head and the Congress to improve program 

management. 

• Maximize the positive impact and ensure the independence and 

objectivity of our audits, investigations and other reviews. 

• Use our investigations and other reviews to increase Government integrity 

and recommend improved systems to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. 

• Be innovative and question existing procedures and suggest 

improvements. 

• Build relationships with program managers based on a shared 

commitment to improving program operations and effectiveness. 

• Strive to continually improve the quality and usefulness of our products. 

• Work together to address Government-wide issues. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 28 
STRATEGIC PLAN

FOR THE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

I. Introduction and Background: 

To enhance the effectiveness of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the 

Federal Election Commission (FEC), and to ensure effective audit coverage of the 

Commission’s programs and operations, this office has developed the following strategic 

plan. In conjunction with the strategic plan, the OIG will continue to request audit ideas 

from all staff. The OIG will also take into consideration the FEC’s strategic plan in 

making its decisions on areas to audit. This will enable the office to address the audit 

requirements of its customers. 

The Office of Inspector General within the Federal Election Commission was 

created in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The mission 

of the OIG, as spelled out in the Act, is to: 

• conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and 

investigations relating to agency programs and operations; 

• promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency; 

• prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse in agency program and 

operations; 

• review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed 

legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations; 

• keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed to 

problems in agency programs and operations. 

To carry out these responsibilities, the Congress has given the Inspector General: 

• access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, 

recommendations or other material which relate to the programs and 

operations of the Commission; 

• authority to make such investigations and reports, that in the judgment 

of the Inspector General, are necessary; 

• authority to request assistance from any federal, state or local 

government agency as may be necessary; 

• authority to issue subpoenas; 

• authority to administer and take oaths, affirmations or affidavits; 

• direct and prompt access to the Commission (as head of the agency); 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 29 
• authority to select, appoint and employ such officers and employees as 

may be necessary for carrying out the functions, powers, and duties of 

the OIG; 

• authority to obtain expert and consultant services; and, 

• within the limits of the budget, authority to contract out for audits, 

studies, analyses, and other services. 

The OIG shall also: 

• comply with Government Auditing Standards and other applicable 

auditing and investigative standards; 

• ensure that any work performed by non-federal auditors complies with 

Government Auditing Standards; 

• avoid duplication with the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and 

ensure effective coordination and cooperation; 

• report all suspected violations of criminal law to the Attorney General; 

and, 

• arrange for a review of the OIG by a federal audit entity at least once 

every three years for the purpose of determining whether Government 

Auditing Standards are being followed. 

II. Organization: 

The OIG is currently assigned four FTE. The staff consists of the Inspector 

General, two senior Auditors and a Special Assistant to the Inspector General. The OIG 

is provided legal services through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 

Office of General Counsel. The OIG also has a MOU with the Staff Director and the 

Designated Agency Ethics Official. 

The OIG takes several steps to ensure the quality of the work performed and 

products produced. The office hires only qualified and competent staff and ensures that 

their expertise and professional competence is maintained by being certain that all staff 

receive the amount of training required by the Government Auditing Standards. A 

deliberate effort is made to give staff a wide variety of assignments, including special 

projects, to further increase their knowledge and capabilities. Since the staff size is 

small, the Inspector General is very involved in the audit and investigative processes. 

All products that are produced by the OIG are personally reviewed and signed by 

the Inspector General. In addition, every three years, the OIG undergoes a peer review of 

the audit operation. This is conducted by another Office of Inspector General following 

PCIE/ECIE guidelines. The results of the peer review are given to the Commission by 

the Inspector General. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 30 
III. Federal Election Commission - Mission Statement and Goals: 

The mission statement of the FEC, as stated in the FEC Strategic Plan 1998-2003, 

is as follows: 

The ultimate mission of the FEC is to assure that the campaign finance 

process is fully disclosed and that the rules are effectively and fairly 

enforced, fostering the electorate’s faith in the ultimate integrity of the 

nation’s political process. 

The FEC has identified four major goals and objectives that have been tied to four core 

programs. They are as follows: 

Program I - Promoting Disclosure of Campaign Finance Reports 

Required to be Filed for Public View Under the FECA (Title 2): To 

promote full, accurate, and timely disclosure of campaign finance activity 

in federal elections, and to provide information and policy guidance on 

the FECA to the public, press and those persons and entities required to 

comply with the FECA. 

Program II - Enforcing the Disclosure and Limitations Provisions of the 

FECA (Title 2): To encourage and obtain voluntary compliance with the 

disclosure and limitation provisions of the FECA through enforcement of 

the FECA in a timely, consistent, and comprehensive manner. 

Program III - Implementing the Presidential Election Public Funding 

Provisions of the FECA (Title 26): To successfully administer the public 

finding provisions of the FECA under Title 26 U.S.C. for qualified 

candidates in presidential elections. 

Program IV - Enhancing Federal Election Administration: To assist 

state and local election officials charged with administering federal 

elections through operation of the National Clearinghouse on Election 

Administration. 

IV. Office of Inspector General’s Goals and Objectives: 

Subsequent to the evaluation of the various considerations that would affect the 

OIG mission and the ability to meet it, three major categories of OIG-wide goals and 

objectives have been identified. They are, Products, Processes, and Staff. Possible 

strategies and performance measures for each have been included. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 31 
The OIG strategic plan will continue to evolve and will be reviewed and updated 

as necessary to ensure maximum effectiveness in meeting the changing needs of the FEC, 

consistent with the OIG’s statutory responsibilities. 

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, 

Management and Congress. 

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, 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 32 
- 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 Processes: 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 to 

address changing OIG and FEC priorities; and, 

- identify factors that influence organizational change 

and develop short and long term plans to address them. 

Objective B: Plan and conduct cost-effective 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; 

- identify specific targets for OIG review that are the most 

cost-effective. 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 33 
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 inquiries and requests 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; 

- 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 

October 1, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 34 
 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 

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 communication between employees is open; 

- 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, 1998 - March 31, 1999 Page 35