OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W., Suite 940 

Washington, DC 20463 

May 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUBJECT PAGE 

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

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

SPECIAL PROJECTS............................................................. 11

INSPECTION REPORTS........................................................ 15

INSPECTION FOLLOW-UP................................................... 20

INVESTIGATIONS................................................................. 23

ADDITIONAL OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ACTIVITY......................................................................... 25

ECIE AND PCIE ACTIVITY................................................... 31

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS............................................ 33

TABLE I - QUESTIONED COSTS.......................................... 34

TABLE II - FUNDS PUT TO BETTER USE........................... 35

TABLE III - SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OUTSTANDING

FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS..................... 36

FEC / OIG STRATEGIC PLAN................................................ 37

CONTACTING THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR

GENERAL......................................................................... 38

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I am pleased to submit this semiannual report to Congress covering 

the period October 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002. This report reflects our 

efforts to remain in accordance with the requirements of the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended, and summarizes the major activities and 

accomplishments of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Office of 

Inspector General (OIG). The Executive Summary provides a brief synopsis 

of accomplishments and general activities as it relates to the Office of 

Inspector General. Our accomplishments were made possible by the 

dedicated efforts of a committed and professional staff. 

During this reporting period the Office of Inspector General completed 

and released one special project report, one inspection report, and a follow-up 

report on a previously released inspection. An inspection report and one 

limited scope review was initiated. 

The first report released by the Office of Inspector General was a 

special project report entitled FEC Retirement (OIG-01-09 - December, 

2001). The purpose of conducting this special project was to provide an 

analysis of the Commission’s projected employee retirements over the next 

ten years. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 1 
To obtain statistical data regarding the special project, the OIG 

reviewed retirement statistics from the Office of Personnel Management and 

the FEC’s Personnel Office and Data Systems Development Division 

(DSDD). The data reviewed included current, five, seven, and ten year 

retirement eligibility for FEC staff. The OIG also obtained from OPM 

retirement projection figures which represent the expected future 

retirements for the FEC staff based on statistical calculations using prior 

FEC retirement trends and age profile of the FEC staff. 

The OIG concluded that the risk associated with losing substantial 

numbers of employees to retirement is considerably less for the FEC than it 

is for the Federal government as a whole. However, the OIG found the 

potential loss of a large number of office heads over the next several years to 

be noteworthy. As of September 2001, 21% of the 24 office heads were 

eligible for regular retirement. At the end of calendar year 2006, 46% will be 

eligible for retirement; 67% by the end of calendar year 2008. Additional 

information regarding this project is located on page 11, the section entitled 

Special Projects. 

The second report completed and released during this reporting period, 

Inspection of the Commission’s Occupant Emergency Plan (OEP) 

(OIG-01-10 - February, 2002), was performed to assess the Commission’s 

emergency preparedness plan and program. An OEP is a facility’s short term 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 2 
response program for safeguarding lives and property during emergencies. 

Federal agency’s that occupy space in federally-owned or GSA-leased 

facilities are required by Federal Property Management Regulations to 

establish and maintain an OEP. 

The primary objectives of the inspection were to: 1) evaluate the 

Commission’s OEP to determine whether the plan adequately meets all GSA 

requirements; 2) determine whether the Commission’s OEP addresses the 

special needs of the physically challenged; and 3) determine whether the 

Commission’s OEP is effectively communicated to staff. The OIG offered five 

suggestions to improve the Commission’s OEP and believes that 

management’s planned and completed actions will provide Commission 

employees the essential information needed to successfully evacuate the 

building during emergency situations. To obtain more information, see the 

section entitled Inspection Reports, located on page 15. 

Follow-up work on the inspection entitled, Inspection of the 

Commission’s Westlaw Database Service (OIG-01-05 - July, 2001), was 

conducted during this reporting period. The Westlaw service provides FEC 

staff with on-line access to legal and business databases. The primary 

reasons for conducting the initial inspection were to: 1) ensure that the 

Westlaw accounts of separated staff are properly canceled; and 2) review 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 3 
improper Westlaw financial payments to determine the cause and evaluate 

the payment process. 

The purpose of conducting the follow-up was to determine whether 

corrective action had been taken to address the one recommendation 

contained in the original inspection report. The OIG concluded that 

management has taken steps to implement a process to monitor the receipt 

of goods and services to lessen the likelihood of duplicate payments to 

vendors. The single recommendation contained in the inspection report was 

closed. For more information on the follow-up work conducted, see the 

Inspection Follow-up section on page 20. 

The OIG also initiated an inspection of the Federal Election 

Commission’s subscription / publication services (Inspection of the 

Commission’s Subscription / Publication Services - OIG-02-01) during 

this semiannual period. The purpose of conducting the inspection is to: 1) 

assess the adequacy of the level of funds expended for various publications; 

and 2) determine whether the current publication budget and expenditures 

accurately reflects the usage of these publications and whether or not these 

publications meet the needs of the Commission. Additional information 

regarding this inspection can be found on page 18, the Inspection Reports 

section. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 4 
Prior to the end of this reporting period, a review of the Commission’s 

security cameras and building security was initiated (Limited Scope 

Building Security Review - OIG-02-02). The purpose of the review is to 

assess the effectiveness of the building security cameras and address the 

building security issues that arose concerning the theft of a laptop computer. 

Meetings have been held to discuss the issues surrounding the Commission’s 

security camera recording system and the cameras were also reviewed to 

assess the quality of images provided by the cameras. Specific information 

regarding the limited scope review is located in the section entitled Special 

Projects, which is located on page 14. 

The OIG provided assistance to the Federal Protective Service (FPS) in 

conducting an investigation involving the theft of Government property. An 

FEC laptop computer and carrying case was stolen from one of the divisions. 

The FEC reported the value of the laptop to be $3,000. For further details, 

refer to the section entitled Investigations, found on page 23. 

Listed below are highlights of additional activities conducted by the 

Office of Inspector General during this reporting period. Items are described 

in greater detail, starting on page 25, the section entitled Additional Office 

of Inspector General Activity. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 5 
• The OIG responded to a request from Senator Charles E. Grassley, 

regarding the SmartPay program and the misuse of government 

charge cards. The Senator expressed concerns regarding the 

program’s effectiveness, as well as any fraud and misuse pertaining 

to the government charge cards. One of the Senator’s biggest 

concerns was whether the agencies have adequate controls in place 

to ensure the honest use of government accounts and charge cards. 

Particularly troubling were reports of the government paying for 

employees’ personal expenses because of unauthorized use of 

government charge cards. 

Several steps were taken by the OIG to address the concerns 

contained in the request. The OIG prepared and submitted the 

response to Senator Grassley on October 16, 2002. For detailed 

information pertaining to the FEC OIG reply to this request, see 

page 25. 

• The OIG responded to a request from a Special Agent of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

seeking information on a former FEC contractor. The SBA OIG 

received an allegation that the contractor misrepresented itself and 

received government contracts based on that misrepresentation. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 6 
Additional information, as it relates to the previous FEC contractor, 

can be retrieved from page 28. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 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. 

Prior to the end of this semiannual reporting period, a new 

Commissioner, Michael E. Toner, was appointed to the Commission. 

Commissioner Toner was sworn in on April 1, 2002, and replaces 

Commissioner Darryl R. Wold, whose term expired last April. 

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). 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 8 
The responsibilities of the Inspector General as stated in P.L. 100-504 

are as follows: 

• conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to 

the Federal Election Commission’s programs and operations; 

• 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; 

• keep the Commissioners and Congress fully and currently 

informed about problems and deficiencies and the need for 

and progress of corrective actions. 

The OIG is under the supervision of the Inspector General who 

provides overall direction to the staff. The OIG staffing level for FY 2002 is 

four (4) full time employees. The staff consists of the Inspector General, the 

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

FY’01, the OIG has requested funds to contract out for audit services. One of 

the benefits of using a contract audit firm would be to conduct more 

specialized audits, especially in the IT area where the staff expertise may not 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 9 
be sufficient. Through this fiscal year, we have not been allotted any 

contract funds. The OIG again renewed this request for FY’03. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 10
SPECIAL PROJECTS 

TITLE: FEC Retirement

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG - 01-09

RELEASE DATE: December, 2001

WEBSITE ADDRESS: http://www.fec.gov/fecig/retire.pdf

PURPOSE: The purpose of conducting this special project was

to provide an analysis of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) projected

employee retirements over the next ten years. 

Studies conducted by government oversight agencies such as the 

General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) have predicted a potentially gloomy retirement scenario for the 

Federal government. This problem could significantly impact the Federal 

government’s ability to manage its tasks and programs due to the possibility 

of large numbers of employees that may retire over a relatively short period 

of time. 

The OIG reviewed retirement statistics obtained from OPM, the FEC’s 

Personnel Office, and Data Systems Development Division (DSDD). The 

data reviewed included current, five, seven, and ten year retirement 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 11 
Special Projects (continued) 

eligibility for FEC staff. The OIG also obtained from OPM retirement 

projection figures which represent the expected future retirements for the 

FEC staff based on statistical calculations using prior FEC retirement trends 

and age profile of the FEC staff. 

The retirement data reviewed included only regular retirement, not 

early retirement. Employees are generally able to voluntarily retire (regular 

retirement) under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the 

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) provided they meet one of the 

following scenarios: 1) are 55-59 years of age and have 30 or more years of 

service; 2) are 60-61 years of age and have 20 or more years of service; or 3) 

are 62 years of age and have 5 or more years of service. 

The OIG concluded that the risk associated with losing substantial 

numbers of employees to retirement is considerably less for the FEC than it 

is for the Federal government as a whole. However, the OIG found the 

potential loss of a large number of office heads over the next several years to 

be noteworthy. As of September 2001, 21% of the 24 office heads were 

eligible for regular retirement. At the end of calendar year 2006, 46% will be 

eligible for retirement; 67% by the end of calendar year 2008. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 12 
Special Projects (continued) 

The OIG believes the problem of the potential retirement of senior 

management over the next several years would benefit by incorporating 

human resources goals in future GPRA performance plans to ensure the FEC 

is successful in meeting its mission. The strategic planning requirements of 

the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) provide a useful 

framework for the FEC to integrate their human capital strategies with their 

strategic and programmatic planning - to identify the workforce size and 

skills mix needed for mission accomplishment and to create strategies to fill 

the gaps. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 13 
Special Projects (continued) 

TITLE: Limited Scope Building Security Review 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG - 02-02

RELEASE DATE: In Progress

PURPOSE: The primary reason for conducting this limited

scope building security review is to assess the effectiveness of the building

security cameras and address the building security issues that arose

concerning the theft of a laptop computer.

Up to this point, specific steps taken to perform the review include 

conducting meetings with the Commission’s Printing Officer, who is 

responsible for the FEC’s security camera recording system, and the 

Administrative Officer at which time the issues surrounding the recording 

system were discussed. 

The OIG also reviewed the Federal Protective Service’s recently 

completed building security assessment of the 999 E Street location. A video 

tape recording from the FEC’s security cameras was also reviewed to assess 

the quality of images provided by the security cameras. Future meetings are 

scheduled to discuss additional issues. The OIG anticipates completing this 

review during the next reporting period. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 14 
INSPECTION REPORTS 

TITLE: Inspection of the Commission’s Occupant 

Emergency Plan (OEP) 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG - 01-10 

RELEASE DATE: February, 2002 

WEBSITE ADDRESS: http://www.fec.gov/fecig/oep.pdf 

PURPOSE: Due to the recent terrorist attacks, Federal 

Agencies have been forced to address new issues regarding workplace safety 

and emergency preparedness. Therefore, the Office of Inspector General 

conducted the inspection of the FEC’s OEP to assess the Commission’s 

emergency preparedness plan and program. An OEP is a facility’s short term 

response program for safeguarding lives and property during emergencies. 

Federal agency’s that occupy space in federally-owned or GSA-leased 

facilities are required by Federal Property Management Regulations to 

establish and maintain an OEP. 

The primary objectives of the inspection were to: 1) evaluate the 

Commission’s OEP to determine whether the plan adequately meets all GSA 

requirements; 2) determine whether the Commission’s OEP addresses the 

special needs of the physically challenged; and 3) determine whether the 

Commission’s OEP is effectively communicated to staff. The scope of the 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 15 
Inspection Reports (continued) 

inspection focused on evaluating the Commission’s efforts to properly develop 

an emergency preparedness plan that can reduce threats to personnel safety, 

property, and other assets. 

To complete the inspection, various documents were reviewed, such as 

the FEC’s Occupant Emergency Plan, and applicable federal regulations and 

laws. An inspection guide was developed and a survey questionnaire was also 

developed to measure employees’ knowledge of emergency procedures and 

practices at the Commission. Additional steps taken by the auditor involved 

contacting officials from other agency’s to obtain information as it pertains to 

their emergency plan development, recent policies and procedural changes, 

and employee evacuation training. Certain sections of the FEC’s OEP were 

also examined to determine whether the special needs of the physically 

challenged employees were addressed. 

We found that the Commission’s emergency plan generally satisfied 

GSA’s requirements. However, we identified several inadequacies in the 

Commission’s OEP which, if taken as a whole, could have a negative impact 

on the FEC’s emergency response program. Although the inspection report 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 16 
Inspection Reports (continued) 

contained no specific recommendations, the OIG made the following 

suggestions to improve the Commission’s Occupant Emergency Plan: 1) 

utilize the GSA checklist to ensure compliance with federal regulations; 2) 

conduct a debriefing or “lessons learned” session with the members of the 

Occupant Emergency Organization after each evacuation drill and ensure 

that evacuation test results are documented; 3) assign monitors to the lobby 

area to assist staff as they exit the building during emergency evacuations 

and ensure that Commission employees utilize all lobby doors during 

evacuations; 4) develop a formal process to update, test, and approve the 

OEP, as well as, amend Commission Directive 40 to include the requirement 

to update the OEP periodically; and 5) continue to examine and evaluate 

building security (i.e. the way the agency controls movement in / out and 

around the building). 

The OIG discussed the suggestions with management and they agreed 

to implement actions to satisfy most of our suggestions. Management’s 

proactive approach to improving the Commission’s emergency preparedness 

program should be commended. In addition, the OIG believes that 

management’s planned and completed actions will strengthen the agency’s 

emergency program. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 17 
Inspection Reports (continued) 

TITLE: Inspection of the Commission’s 

Subscription / Publication Services 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG - 02-01 

RELEASE DATE: In Progress 

PURPOSE: During this reporting period, the OIG initiated an 

inspection of the Commission’s subscription / publication services. The 

purpose of conducting the inspection is to: 1) assess the adequacy of the level 

of funds expended for various publications; and 2) determine whether the 

current publication budget and expenditures accurately reflects the usage of 

these publications and whether or not these publications meet the needs of 

the Commission. 

During the preparatory stages of the inspection, the OIG completed a 

comparative analysis of prior year subscription budget information. FEC 

policies, directives, and budget execution reports were analyzed to obtain 

information relevant to the procurement of subscriptions. In order to 

familiarize the OIG with the process of renewing publications and the 

various forms used to request publications, procurement requests and 

purchase orders for subscriptions were inspected. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 18 
Inspection Reports (continued) 

Additional steps taken also included analyzing the FY 2002 

Management Plan to compare publication and publication service usage 

within the FEC. The inspection guide has been developed using information 

obtained through interviews with Commission personnel, as well as data 

obtained during the preliminary stages of the inspection. The OIG 

anticipates completing the inspection prior to the next semiannual reporting 

period. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 19 
INSPECTION FOLLOW-UP 

TITLE: Inspection of the Commission’s 

Westlaw Database Service 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG - 01-05 

RELEASE DATE: July, 2001 

(inspection report) 

WEBSITE ADDRESS: http://www.fec.gov/fecig/westlaw.pdf 

PURPOSE: The purpose of conducting this inspection follow-up 

was to determine whether corrective action had been taken to address the 

one recommendation contained in the original inspection report. The 

Westlaw service provides Commission employees with on-line access to legal 

and business databases. The primary objectives of the original inspection 

were performed to: 1) ensure that the Westlaw accounts of separated staff 

are properly canceled; and 2) review improper Westlaw financial payments to 

determine the cause and evaluate the payment process. 

During the initial inspection, the OIG discovered a pattern of duplicate 

payments made to the Westlaw vendor. Based on a review of Westlaw 

payments and supporting documentation, the OIG found four duplicate 

payments had been made in three of the four fiscal years reviewed (1998, 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 20 
Inspection Follow-up (continued) 

1999, and 2001). A fifth invoice in FY 2001 was improperly approved for 

payment by the Library Office, but did not obtain the necessary approval for 

payment by the Administrative Officer, therefore the invoice was not paid. 

All duplicate payments were recovered from the vendor and were deemed as 

errors and not the result of fraud or abuse. The OIG recommended that the 

Library office develop an adequate system, in consultation with the 

Accounting Office, to monitor open purchase orders. For example, a 

computer spreadsheet could be developed to monitor open purchase orders, 

including obligations of funds, and partial / final receipt of goods or services. 

The OIG met with the Library Director and spoke with the Library 

Technician to discuss a process implemented by the Library Office to monitor 

the receipt and authorization for payment of goods and services. The OIG 

inspected the Library Office’s “Receiving Report Log” which is used when the 

Library Office signs-off on a receiving report for the receipt of goods or 

services. In order for the Accounting Office to pay a vendor, receiving 

reports must be completed by the requisitioning office acknowledging the 

receipt of goods or services. The “Receiving Report Log” is intended to 

provide the Library Office with a record of receiving reports previously 

approved to prevent the approval of duplicate receiving reports. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 21 
Inspection Follow-up (continued) 

The OIG concluded the Library Office satisfactorily implemented a 

process to monitor the receipt of goods or services to lessen the likelihood of 

duplicate payments to vendors. Therefore, the OIG closed the one 

recommendation contained in the initial inspection report. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 22 
INVESTIGATIONS 

No new investigations were opened during this reporting period. 

However, the OIG provided assistance to the Federal Protective Service 

(FPS) with regards to an investigation into the theft of Government 

property. 

A laptop computer and carrying case was stolen from the FEC. The 

theft was immediately reported to the General Services Administration’s 

Federal Protective Service. A special agent from the FPS’ Criminal 

Investigations Section, along with the FEC OIG, investigated the theft. The 

FEC reported the value of the laptop computer at $3,000. 

The FEC’s security camera recording was reviewed and a suspicious 

male was identified entering the building immediately before the time of the 

theft. Photographs were produced from the security camera recording by the 

Administrative Office. The FPS special agent provided a photograph of the 

suspicious male to local police precincts to determine whether the male is 

known to be involved in thefts in the area. The FPS special agent also 

contacted local pawn shops to determine whether the laptop had turned up. 

No leads arose from the local police or pawn shops. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 23 
Investigations (continued) 

FEC employees who reported seeing the suspicious male in the 

building were identified and interviewed by the OIG and FPS Special Agent. 

The FEC security officers and the parking garage attendant on duty at the 

time of the theft were also interviewed. The interviews did not result in any 

leads. More than a month after the theft, the OIG contacted the FPS special 

agent to determine whether any leads on the theft had occurred. The 

investigator stated there was no additional information pertaining to the 

case. The OIG concluded it is unlikely the FEC laptop computer will be 

located. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 24 
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 reviews and 

comments, when appropriate, on all legislation provided by the PCIE 

Legislative Committee. In addition, the Inspector General routinely reads all 

Commission agenda items and attends Finance Committee meetings. 

• Taking into account recent revelations regarding the misuse of 

government charge cards, the OIG responded to a request from 

Senator Charles E. Grassley who expressed concerns relevant to 

the SmartPay program and the misuse of government charge cards. 

The Senator was interested in the program’s effectiveness, as well 

as any fraud and misuse pertaining to the government charge 

cards. However, one of his biggest concerns was whether the 

agencies have adequate controls in place to ensure the honest use of 

government accounts and charge cards. Particularly troubling to 

the Senator were reports of the government paying for employees’ 

personal expenses because of unauthorized use of government 

charge cards. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 25 
The Senator wanted to know about the IG’s evaluative experience 

with the SmartPay program. He requested we provide the 

following: 1) any information regarding instances of employees 

who have been investigated and disciplined for misusing their 

government purchase and travel cards, including a full description 

of each instance of misuse / abuse and the resulting disciplinary 

action; 2) details of audits and investigations conducted by the 

Commission regarding the use of SmartPay accounts, along with 

copies of any reports that have been written as a result of such 

activities; 3) details of audits and investigations the Commission 

plans to conduct regarding the use of SmartPay accounts; and 4) 

any recommendations the Commission has for correcting program 

weaknesses. 

To address the concerns of the Senator, the OIG contacted the 

FEC’s Administrative Officer, who also serves as the program 

manager of the SmartPay card, to determine whether or not any 

employees had misused / abused a government purchase and travel 

card. According to the Administrative Officer, there have been a 

few instances that employees have reported that they had 

mistakenly taken out their travel charge card instead of their 

personal charge card and used the card for a personal transaction. 

When the employee realized their mistake, they called the 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 26 
Administrative Office and reported the error and paid for the 

personal charges when the bill arrived. No disciplinary action was 

necessary. 

The Senator requested details of any audits or investigations that 

were conducted with regards to the use of SmartPay accounts, 

along with copies of any reports written by the OIG as a result of 

such activities. Our efforts to address this request included 

reviewing an audit that was conducted in 1996 entitled Review of 

Commission Travel (OIG-96-02). During the initial review in 1996, 

the American Express (AMEX) charge card activity statement was 

reviewed to ensure charge cards were used for authorized purposes 

only. 

The Senator also requested details of audits and investigations the 

OIG plans to conduct regarding the use of SmartPay accounts and 

any recommendations the OIG has for correcting program 

weaknesses. The OIG’s FY’02 audit plan does not currently include 

a planned audit, inspection or investigation of the SmartPay 

accounts. However, the OIG anticipates conducting a review of the 

SmartPay accounts in a future fiscal year. To correct program 

weaknesses, the OIG offered the following recommendations to the 

Senator: 1) users of the cards must be adequately trained on the 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 27 
rules and procedures governing the use of the cards; 2) program 

managers should thoroughly review the card billing statements to 

ensure only authorized transactions have occurred; and 3) 

unauthorized charges should be reviewed and reported to the OIG 

for a determination of the cause and effect of the unauthorized use 

of the SmartPay cards. On October 16, 2002, the OIG prepared 

and submitted the response. Senator Grassley expressed his 

appreciation for our efforts in helping to eliminate waste and the 

fraudulent use of government accounts. 

• The OIG received and responded to a request from a Special Agent 

(SA) of the Small Business Administration (SBA), Office of 

Inspector General, seeking information on a former FEC 

contractor. The SBA OIG received an allegation that the 

contractor misrepresented itself and possibly received government 

contracts based on that misrepresentation. To determine which 

Federal agencies had contracted with that particular contractor, 

the SA contacted the GSA’s Federal Procurement Data System 

(FPDS). According to reports obtained from the FPDS, the FEC 

was one of two agencies that had contracts with the contractor in 

question. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 28 
The OIG attended a meeting with the Special Agent and those 

representing the FEC Data Systems Development Division, to 

discuss the possibility of a preliminary investigation. During that 

meeting, the OIG was provided with a printout of contract awards. 

The OIG contacted the FEC Accounting and Administrative 

Officers to verify whether the contracts received were valid, and to 

ascertain if the contractor received the contracts based on the 

alleged misrepresentation. The OIG received information from the 

Data Systems Development Division regarding the contractor and 

their association with the FEC. We also received several 

procurement documents from the Accounting and Administrative 

Officers. All documents were photocopied and forwarded to the 

Special Agent. Shortly thereafter, the OIG was notified by the 

Special Agent that the SBA OIG has decided not to open a case on 

the contractor. 

• During the course of this reporting period, the OIG developed and 

began using two new forms. The first form entitled Program 

Manager’s Evaluation of OIG Audit, was designed to obtain the 

program manager’s feedback regarding their recently completed 

OIG audit. The OIG ask the program manager to answer seven 

questions and rate them on a scale of 1-5. One of the OIG’s 

objectives is to find out, after the final report has been issued, how 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 29 
satisfied the program manager is with their experience with the 

OIG staff and the audit process. The second form entitled Program 

Manager’s Decisions of Audit Report Recommendations, was 

developed to provide the program manager with a concise format 

reflecting the recommendations contained within the final report. 

The form also provides the manager with a space to express 

agreement / disagreement with the recommendations and to 

provide the OIG with the actual / estimated date the manager 

expects the recommendations to be implemented. The OIG intends 

to use these forms to improve the quality of our work. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 30 
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 is a member of the Executive Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency and continues to remain active in various issues 

impacting the OIG community. The Inspector General (or staff) attended the 

following training, programs and/or conferences during this reporting period: 

• ECIE - Monthly Meetings 

• ECIE - Liaison Meetings 

• PCIE / ECIE - Joint Quarterly Meeting 

• PCIE / ECIE - Awards Ceremony 

• PCIE / ECIE - Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

Interest Group Roundtable Discussion 

• PCIE / ECIE - Professional Development Forum of 2002, Whistle 

Blower Reprisal Forum 

• Federal Election Commission - Administrative Liaison Meetings 

• Federal Election Commission - Emergency Evacuation Procedures 

Meeting 

• PeopleSoft University - Introduction to Financials & Distribution 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 31 
• Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA) - Best 

Practices / Lessons Learned Conference 

• Inspector General Auditor Training Institute (IGATI) - Fraud 

Auditing: Theory and Awareness 

• National Businesswomen’s Leadership Association - 2002 

Conference for Women 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 32 
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-----------------------------------------------25 

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-----------------------------------------------36 

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)(7) Summary of Significant Reports-------------------------------15 

Section 5(a)(8) Questioned and Unsupported Costs---------------------------34 

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

to Better Use---------------------------------------------------------35 

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, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 33 
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, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 34 
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, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 35 
TABLE III 

SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS 

Recommendations 

Report Issue 

Report Title Number Date Number Closed Open 

Agency Controls 00-01 09/00 7 3 4

Governing the Process

for Procurement of Vendor

Training Services

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 36
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, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 37 
CONTACTING THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The success of the OIG mission to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse depends 

on the cooperation of FEC employees (and the public). There are several 

ways to report questionable activity. 

Call us at 202-694-1015 or toll-free 1-800-424-9530. A confidential or 

anonymous message can be left 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. 

Write or visit us - we are located at: Federal Election Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

999 E Street, N.W., Suite 940 

Washington, DC 20463 

Mail is opened by OIG staff members only. 

You can also contact us by e-mail at: oig@fec.gov. 

Our Website address: http://www.fec.gov/fecig.htm. 

Individuals may be subject to disciplinary or criminal action for knowingly 

making a false complaint or providing false information. 

October 1, 2001 - March 31, 2002 Page 38