Semiannual Report to Congress 

Office of Inspector General 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W., Suite 940 

Washington, DC 20463

October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 

May 2006 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ---------------------------- 6 

ADDITIONAL OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

TABLE III - SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH

 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OUTSTANDING 

CONTACTING THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR 

AUDITS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 

HOTLINE COMPLAINTS ---------------------------------------------- 18

INVESTIGATIONS ------------------------------------------------------- 19 

ACTIVITY ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 

ECIE AND PCIE ACTIVITY ---------------------------------------------- 26 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ------------------------------------- 29 

TABLE I - QUESTIONED COSTS ------------------------------------- 30 

TABLE II - FUNDS PUT TO BETTER USE ---------------------------- 31 

FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS ------------------- 32 

FEC/OIG STRATEGIC PLAN – FY 2005-2010 -------------------------- 33 

GENERAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I am pleased to submit this Semiannual Report to Congress covering 

the period October 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006. 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 and are 

described in greater detail in subsequent sections of this report. Our 

accomplishments were made possible by the dedicated efforts of a committed 

and professional staff. 

The Office of Inspector General is responsible for directing and 

carrying out audits, inspections, and investigations related to the Federal 

Election Commission programs and operations. The OIG recommends 

policies that promote economic, efficient, and effective use of agency resources 

and programs that prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The 

OIG is also responsible for keeping Congress and the Commission fully 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 1 
informed regarding problems and deficiencies detected in FEC programs and 

operations, and the necessity for corrective action. 

The audits performed by the OIG are conducted in accordance with the 

Government Auditing Standards issued by the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO). The investigations carried out by the OIG comply with the 

Quality Standards for Investigations developed by the President’s Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the Executive Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency (ECIE). 

During this semiannual reporting period, the OIG completed and 

released two audit reports. The first report entitled Audit of the FEC’s 

Fiscal Year 2005 Financial Statements – OIG – 05-01 was released 

November, 2005. Under a contract monitored by the OIG, Clifton Gunderson, 

LLP (CG-LLP), an independent certified public accounting firm, performed 

the audit of the FEC’s FY 2005 financial statements. 

The results of the financial statement audit were detailed in three 

reports: Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations; Report on 

Internal Control; and the Opinion on the Financial Statements. The results of 

CG-LLP’s tests of compliance with laws and regulations described in the 

audit report disclosed no instances of noncompliance with the laws and 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 2 
regulations that are required to be reported under Government Auditing 

Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 01-02. 

CG-LLP’s planning and performance of the audit included 

consideration of the FECs internal control over financial reporting. The 

auditors limited their internal control testing to those controls necessary to 

achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02 and consequently 

CG-LLP did not provide an opinion on internal control. CG-LLP audited the 

balance sheets and the related statements of net cost, changes in net position, 

budgetary resources, financing, and custodial activity of the FEC. CG-LLP 

issued a qualified opinion on the FEC’s financial statements. Additional 

details pertaining to the FY 2005 financial statement audit can be found on 

page 12, the section entitled Audits. 

The second audit released by the OIG entitled Audit of the FEC’s 

Public Disclosure Process – OIG – 02-03 was conducted to 1) determine 

the extent, if any, of disclosure differences between candidate contributions 

reported by political committees and related political committee contributions 

reported received by candidates, and 2) assess whether an adequate process 

is in place to remedy any reporting discrepancies. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 3 
Our audit examined the extent of disclosure differences within the 

Commission’s complex disclosure process and the magnitude of campaign 

finance data. We found that disclosure differences generally exist between 

the amounts of money reported given by a political action committee (PAC) 

and the contributions the candidate reported receiving. Overall, the OIG 

believes the FEC consistently constructs, for the most part, an accurate 

depiction of financial activities based upon the participation of Congress and 

other mandated filers. 

The OIG made a few suggestions for improvement to the disclosure 

process. Management concurred with the OIG’s determinations and 

acknowledged that there are areas that can be improved within the public 

disclosure process. The section entitled Audits starting on page 8, contains 

additional information regarding the public disclosure audit. 

The OIG has one audit currently in progress - Audit of the FEC’s 

Employee Transit Benefit Program - OIG-06-01, commenced during this 

reporting period. The Employee Transit Benefit Program is a federally 

mandated program that provides a monthly transit subsidy to eligible 

employees who commute by means other than single-occupancy motor 

vehicles. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 4 
The primary objectives of the audit are to 1) assess program policies 

and operating procedures for compliance with applicable regulations, 2) 

verify employee compliance with program participation requirements, and 3) 

ensure the appropriate internal controls are in place. To obtain additional 

information pertaining to the audit of the transit benefit program, refer to 

page 16. 

At this time, the OIG currently has seven hotline complaints at various 

stages. Information related to the hotline complaints can be found on page 

18, the section entitled Hotline Complaints. One criminal investigation 

was opened and one administrative investigation was closed during this 

reporting period. For further details on these investigations, see the 

Investigation section which can be found on page 19. 

The section entitled Additional Office of Inspector General 

Activity, found on page 21, contains information relating to other activities 

the Office of Inspector General was involved in during this reporting period. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 5 
THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to 

administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The 

duties of the FEC, an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose 

campaign finance information; enforce the provisions of the law; and oversee 

the public funding of Presidential elections. 

The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the 

President and confirmed by the Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, 

and two seats are subject to appointment every two years. By law, no more 

than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at 

least four votes are required for any official Commission action. The 

Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, 

with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Inspector General Act of 1978 (P.L. 100-504), as amended in 1988, 

states that the Inspector General is responsible for: 1) conducting and 

supervising audits and investigations relating to the Federal Election 

Commission’s programs and operations; 2) detecting and preventing fraud, 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 6 
waste, and abuse of agency programs and operations while providing 

leadership and coordination; 3) recommending policies designed to promote 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the establishment; and 4) keeping 

the Commissioners and Congress fully and currently informed about 

problems and deficiencies in FEC agency programs and operations, and the 

need for corrective action. 

The mission of the OIG is to be an independent, objective voice that 

aids the Commission by promoting positive change, accountability and 

integrity. An inventory of suggested audits, investigations, and inspections 

received from a variety of sources is maintained. The most important 

challenges on which to focus our work are identified and the final step is to 

plan and conduct audits, investigations, and inspections that address those 

challenges. 

The OIG follows the standards contained in the Quality Standards for 

Federal Offices of Inspector General, published by the President’s Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the Executive Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency (ECIE), and GAO’s Yellow Book. Our investigations comply with 

the Quality Standards for Investigations, which has been developed by the 

PCIE and ECIE. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 7 
AUDITS

TITLE: Audit of the FEC’s Public Disclosure Process 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG – 02-03 

RELEASE DATE: December, 2005 

WEBSITE: http://www.fec.gov/fecig/disclosure.pdf 

PURPOSE: The primary objectives of the audit were to: 1) 

determine the extent, if any, of disclosure differences between candidate 

contributions reported by political committees and related political committee 

contributions reported received by candidates, and 2) assess whether an 

adequate process is in place to remedy any reporting discrepancies. 

The audit work was conducted between August 2002 and July of 2005. 

We performed a significant amount of background research to obtain an 

understanding of the FEC’s disclosure process. We also conducted several 

preliminary meetings with management and contacted external 

organizations for information related to the audit. In order to achieve our 

stated objectives, we reviewed pertinent documentation, conducted 

interviews with Commission staff and performed extensive analyses of 

campaign finance data to identify anomalies and other attributes of the data. 

We also developed process narratives and flowcharts which document the 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 8 
functions and processes of the FEC offices primarily responsible for the 

disclosure process. 

Specifically, our audit examined the extent of disclosure differences 

within the Commission’s complex disclosure process and the magnitude of 

campaign finance data. We found that disclosure differences generally exist 

between the amounts of money reported given by a political action committee 

(PAC) and the contributions the candidate reported receiving. In fact, we 

computed a total variance of 1.2 million dollars between PAC contributions 

reported disbursed and related PAC contributions reported received by our 

judgmental sample of fifty House and Senate candidates. 

The total amount of PAC contributions reported given by the donor 

PACs did not equal the total amount of PAC contributions reported received 

by the fifty sampled candidates. Furthermore, remote users of the 

Commission’s disclosure database are not adequately made aware of 

potential reporting discrepancies that could occur among reporting entities. 

The disclosure database accessible from the FEC Web site does not warn 

users to be cautious when making conclusions from the data files in regards 

to a candidate’s campaign financing activity. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 9 
A variety of campaign factors that are inherently part of the FEC’s 

campaign finance disclosure process produce disclosure differences between 

the amounts of money reported given by a PAC and the contributions the 

candidate reported receiving from the PAC. Differences between reporting 

entities can be attributed to: timing disparities, returned PAC contributions, 

duplicate transactions, inaccurate or incomplete reporting, inaccurate coding, 

the non-reporting of in-kind contributions, and differences in filing 

requirements. 

Additionally, we found the lapse in time between PAC reported 

disbursements and candidate reported receipts of those disbursements can 

also cause disclosure differences. In fact, PAC and candidate transactions 

can cross over one or more reporting cycles. Furthermore, we found it 

difficult to accurately match a PAC disbursement with the exact candidate 

receipt of that PAC disbursement since the donor committee’s identification 

number is not required to be included on the contribution check and one PAC 

can be known by several different names, acronyms, and abbreviations. 

Overall, we believe the FEC consistently constructs, for the most part, 

an accurate depiction of financial activities based upon the participation of 

Congress and other mandated filers. To accommodate the evolving nature of 

the disclosure database, we found that the Commission has developed sound 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 10 
policies and procedures that attempt to prevent, identify, and correct 

reporting variances. Thus, the agency continually makes the data available 

to provide the electorate with the ability to make educated, informed 

decisions on the political process based in part on where candidates for 

federal office derive their financial support. However, patrons must 

understand that, due to the magnitude and complexity of the mandated 

disclosure system, the data must be understood before assumptions are made 

regarding a candidate’s campaign financing activities. 

We discovered that the FEC’s Web site doesn’t encourage patrons to 

review both sides (donor and recipients) before making assumptions with the 

numbers. Nor does the disclosure database effectively disclose the inherent 

factors that cause disclosure differences. Considering this, we made a few 

suggestions for improvement to the disclosure process. Management 

concurred with the OIG’s determinations and acknowledged that there are 

areas that can be improved within the public disclosure process. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 11 
AUDITS

TITLE: Audit of the FEC’s Fiscal Year 2005 Financial 

Statements 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG – 05-01 

RELEASE DATE: November, 2005 

WEBSITE: http://www.fec.gov/fecig/financial05.pdf 

PURPOSE: The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public 

Law 101-576, commonly referred to as the “CFO Act”), as amended, requires 

the FEC Office of Inspector General (OIG), or an independent external 

auditor as determined by the Inspector General, to audit the agency financial 

statements. Under a contract monitored by the OIG, Clifton Gunderson LLP 

(CG-LLP), an independent certified public accounting firm, performed the 

audit of the FEC’s FY 2005 financial statements. 

CG-LLP conducted the audit in accordance with auditing standards 

generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable 

to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by 

the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, 

Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended. The 

results of the financial statement audit were detailed in three reports: 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 12 
Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations; Report on Internal 

Control; and the Opinion on the Financial Statements. 

Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations 

FEC management is responsible for complying with laws and 

regulations applicable to the agency. To obtain reasonable assurance as to 

whether or not the FEC’s financial statements were free of material 

misstatements, CG-LLP performed tests of compliance with certain 

provisions of laws and regulations, non-compliance with which could have a 

direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement 

amounts, and certain laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 01-

02. The results of CG-LLP’s tests of compliance with laws and regulations 

described in the audit report disclosed no instances of noncompliance with 

the laws and regulations that are required to be reported under Government 

Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 01-02. 

Report on Internal Control 

The CG-LLP auditors obtained an understanding of the FEC’s internal 

control; determined whether internal controls had been placed in operation; 

assessed control risk; and performed tests of controls in order to determine 

auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial 

statements. The auditors limited their internal control testing to those 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 13 
controls necessary to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 

01-02 and consequently CG-LLP did not provide an opinion on internal 

control. 

In performing the testing of internal control necessary to achieve the 

objectives in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, the auditors identified matters relating 

to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of FEC’s internal control. 

The testing of internal control identified both reportable conditions and 

material weaknesses. The American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants (AICPA) categorizes reportable conditions as matters relating to 

significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control, 

which in the judgment of the auditor, could adversely affect the agency’s 

ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent 

with the assertions by management in the financial statements. 

Material weaknesses are reportable conditions in which the design or 

operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to 

a relatively low level the risk that misstatements, in amounts that would be 

material in relation to the financial statements being audited, may occur and 

not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of 

performing their assigned functions. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 14 
Opinion on the Financial Statements 

CG-LLP audited the balance sheets of the FEC as of September 30, 

2005 and 2004, and the related statements of net cost, changes in net 

position, budgetary resources, financing, and custodial activity for the years 

then ended. In the report dated November 7, 2005, CG-LLP issued a 

qualified opinion on the FEC’s financial statements. 

In addition to the three reports issued for the FY 2005 audit, a 

management letter was issued on December 9, 2005. The objective of the 

management letter is to bring to management’s attention internal control 

weaknesses discovered during the audit that did not rise to the level 

necessary to be reported in the financial statement audit report. 

Following the conclusion of the audit, the OIG, CG-LLP, and 

management met to discuss the lessons learned from the FY 2005 financial 

statement audit and to prepare for the FY 2006 audit. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 15 
AUDITS

TITLE: Audit of the FEC’s Employee Transit Benefit 

Program 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG – 06-01 

RELEASE DATE: In Progress 

PURPOSE: The Employee Transit Benefit Program is a 

federally mandated program that provides a monthly transit subsidy to 

eligible employees who commute by means other than single-occupancy motor 

vehicles. The primary objectives of the audit are to 1) assess program policies 

and operating procedures for compliance with applicable regulations, 2) 

verify employee compliance with program participation requirements, and 3) 

ensure the appropriate internal controls are in place. 

To prepare for the audit, the OIG obtained and reviewed pertinent 

documents such as mandated federal guidance on transit subsidies, OIG 

audit reports, and other transit benefit programs. A comprehensive audit 

guide was developed to satisfy the audit objectives. 

The entrance conference was held with the Finance Office and Human 

Resources staff to discuss the objectives of the audit and the audit procedures 

to be performed. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 16 
The OIG reviewed the PeopleSoft Procurement Activity Reports to 

determine the number of travel vouchers valued at $1,000 or more. 

PeopleSoft is the Commission’s core accounting system used to maintain the 

FEC financial information. The OIG held several meetings with the Human 

Resources office to discuss management of the transit benefit program. The 

Human Resources and Labor Relations office is responsible for reviewing the 

transit subsidy program applications to determine eligibility and the amount 

of transit subsidy the employee is to receive. The OIG randomly selected 

program participants to verify employee compliance with program 

participation requirements. 

The agencies SmartBenefits’ program administrator was contacted to 

obtain copies of the agency’s SmarTrip claiming reports for the period under 

review. The claiming reports are produced by METRO’s online database 

system. The reports capture employee transit benefits usage data and will be 

used to observe the amount of transit subsidies actually claimed by program 

participants during the audit review period. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 17 
HOTLINE COMPLAINTS

The Office of Inspector General established a hotline to enable 

employees and others to have direct and confidential contact with the OIG. 

The OIG receives complaints through various means such as U.S. mail, 

telephone, electronic mail, and personal visits to the OIG. Once a hotline 

complaint has been received, a preliminary inquiry is conducted. When the 

inquiry has been completed, the hotline complaint can be closed with no 

further action taken, referred to management for action, or closed and an 

investigation is opened on the issue. 

At the close of this reporting period, the OIG had a total of seven 

hotline complaints at various stages. Four hotline complaints are pending 

and three hotline complaints are in progress. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 18 
INVESTIGATIONS

The Office of Inspector General is authorized by the IG Act to receive 

and investigate allegations of fraud, waste and abuse occurring within FEC 

programs and operations. Alleged incidents of possible fraud, waste and 

abuse could include administrative, civil or criminal wrongdoing by FEC 

employees or contractors. Allegations are received primarily from FEC staff 

and management. However, members of Congress, other agencies, citizens, 

contractors, and public interest groups may also refer matters to the OIG for 

investigation. 

In conducting investigations during the past few years, the OIG has 

sought assistance from, and worked jointly with, other agencies, including 

the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Department of Justice Public 

Integrity Section, the U.S. Postal Service OIG, and others. 

During this reporting period, the OIG opened one criminal 

investigation and closed one administrative investigation. The OIG initiated 

a criminal investigation in this reporting period as a result of alleged 

wrongdoing by one or more FEC employees. The investigation is being 

conducted jointly by the OIG and the FBI and the investigative team is 

working closely with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 19 
Columbia. The investigation is ongoing and the OIG plans to report the 

disposition of the investigation in a future semiannual report. 

The OIG also closed one administrative investigation during this 

reporting period. The investigation was initiated in a previous reporting 

period based on an allegation received concerning the misuse of a government 

computer. As part of the OIG’s investigation, the OIG requested computer 

forensic assistance from the U.S. Postal Service OIG to analyze the electronic 

files found on the government computer to determine if misuse had occurred. 

The investigation findings documented the misuse of a government 

computer over a three year period that involved the viewing and downloading 

of a substantial amount of sexually explicit material on a government 

computer. Due to the nature of the sexually explicit pictures and videos, the 

OIG presented the evidence to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of 

Columbia to determine whether the material constituted child pornography, 

a criminal violation. The Assistant United States Attorney declined criminal 

prosecution in lieu of administrative recourse because the material did not 

constitute child pornography. The investigative findings were provided to 

management and the employee resigned from the Commission after being 

presented with the evidence. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 20 
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 

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

PCIE/ECIE Legislative Committee. In addition, the Inspector General 

routinely reads all Commission agenda items and attends the Finance 

Committee meetings. 

• The OIG responded to a survey conducted by the Audit Issues 

Committee of the Federal Audit Executive Council (FAEC). The 

committee conducted the survey to determine whether the OIG 

community would be interested in attending training related to 

the preparation for and execution of external peer reviews. The 

training would ensure that all peer reviewers have the same 

basic understanding of the overall purpose and objectives of an 

external peer review and to highlight the changes to the OIG 

community peer review guide. As a result of the survey, the 

FAEC has scheduled a training session on the peer review 

process and the OIG’s audit staff is registered to attend the 

training. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 21 
• The OIG completed the Access to Information survey which was 

conducted by the GAO’s Domestic Working Group. The survey, 

which was sent to all Federal IGs and selected state and local 

organizations, dealt with problems associated with accessing 

information and what strategies organizations have found 

successful in combating any problems in accessing information. 

• The OIG responded to a data call regarding the PCIE/ECIE FY 

2005 annual report. The annual report team asked a series of 

questions related to the OIG’s audit and investigative statistics 

and the OIG’s profile data. The information provided will be 

consolidated and will be included in the PCIE/ECIE Annual 

Report to the President. 

• The OIG contacted the agency’s National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) representative to inquiry about records 

management policies and procedures specific to OIGs. Meetings 

were held with the Administrative staff to obtain background 

information about the project and to discuss the Commission’s 

records management project. The OIG obtained and reviewed a 

copy of the Commission’s contract with STG (FEC records 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 22 
management contractor) to determine what specific tasks the 

contractor will complete. According to the contract, STG is to 

assist the OIG in setting up OIG files to conform to file plans 

and record schedules. 

• The OIG community launched the first PCIE E-Learning 

initiative during a previous reporting period. The FEC OIG is a 

participant in this pilot and had the opportunity to utilize the 

IGEL E-Learning program over the past six months. The OIG 

community was surveyed to ascertain the program’s overall 

value to the OIG community. The OIG also completed the IG ELearning (IGEL) Administrator Survey. This survey was 

conducted to collect feedback about the administrative process of 

the IGEL program. The data collected from the survey will be 

helpful in determining how to improve the support for IGEL 

program administrators. An IGEL Employee Survey was also 

completed by the OIG during this reporting period. 

• The OIG reviewed a draft copy of the Disaster and Emergency 

Preparedness Guide, prepared by the PCIE/ECIE Inspection and 

Evaluation Committee. This guide is to assist IGs with the 

evaluation of their agency’s emergency preparedness under the 

National Incident Management System Framework. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 23 
• On November 22, 2000 the President signed the Reports 

Consolidation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-531), an amendment 

to the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990. The Reports 

Consolidation Act of 2000 requires Inspectors General to provide 

a summary and assessment of the most serious management 

and performance challenges facing Federal agencies and the 

agencies’ progress in addressing these challenges. Previously, 

the Federal Election Commission Inspector General was not 

subject to this requirement, since the FEC was not a covered 

agency of the CFO Act of 1990. As a result of the enactment of 

the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002, the FEC is now 

subject to these provisions. The Inspector General’s 2005 

Statement on the Federal Election Commission’s Management 

and Performance Challenges summarized three areas for 

inclusion in the Federal Election Commission Performance and 

Accountability Report (PAR) Fiscal Year 2005: Information 

Technology Security; Financial Reporting; and Human Capital 

Management. The Inspector General’s assessment was based on 

information derived from a combination of several sources; 

including Office of Inspector General audit and inspection work, 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 24 
Commission reports, and a general knowledge of the 

Commission’s programs. 

• On a daily basis, the OIG receives a number of e-mail inquiries. 

During this six-month reporting period, the OIG received a total 

of 8,732 e-mails - 7,570 of those e-mails were unreadable and 

1,064 were advertisements or spammed e-mails. The OIG 

forwarded 98 electronic inquiries to other entities. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 25 
ECIE AND PCIE ACTIVITY

The President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the 

Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE) were established by 

Executive Order 12805 – May 11, 1992, to coordinate and enhance 

governmental efforts to promote integrity and efficiency, and to detect and 

prevent fraud, waste and abuse in Federal programs. The PCIE is comprised 

of IGs appointed by the President of the United States. The ECIE consists of 

IGs appointed by the head of their respective agencies. 

The Commission’s Inspector General is an active member of the 

Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency and has provided input to a 

number of initiatives proposed by the Council. The ECIE serves as a forum 

for the exchange of views for the Inspector General Community. The Council 

identifies, reviews, and discusses issues that are of interest to the entire IG 

Community. The IG attends regular meetings held by the ECIE, and joint 

meetings of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the 

Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

The OIG employees continually seek ways to improve skills and 

knowledge. For the period October 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006, the 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 26 
Inspector General and/or the OIG staff attended the following training, 

meetings, programs, seminars, and/or conferences: 

• ECIE – Monthly Meetings 

• PCIE – Financial Statement Audit Network (FSAN) Meeting 

• PCIE – Inspection & Evaluation Roundtable Discussion 

• PCIE / ECIE – Federal Audit Executive Committee (FAEC) Meeting 

• PCIE / ECIE – Inspector General E-Learning (IGEL) Users Meeting 

• PCIE / ECIE – SkillSoft Training Program – Introduction to 

Auditing 

• PCIE / ECIE – SkillSoft Training Program – You and Your Time 

• PCIE / ECIE – SkillSoft Training Program – Competency Program 

Courses 

• PCIE / ECIE – SkillSoft Training Program – Delivering Your 

Message 

• PCIE / ECIE – SkillSoft Training Program – Avoiding Errors in 

Usage and Punctuation 

• PCIE / ECIE – Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section’s 

(CCIPS) OIG Community Cyber Summit 

• Small Agency Council – Contracting Basics for Contracting Officer’s 

Technical Representatives (COTR) Training 

• Inspector General Management Institute (IGMI) – Professional 

Development Training 

• Association of Government Accountants (AGA) – Leadership 

Meeting 

• METRO – Smart Benefits Employer Seminar 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 27 
• Zylab, Inc. – Information Technology (IT) Training 

• Federal Election Commission – EEO Management Training 

• Federal Election Commission – Administrative Liaison Group 

Meetings 

• Federal Election Commission – Time and Attendance Refresher 

Training 

• Federal Election Commission – Occupant Emergency Plan (OEP) 

Meeting 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 28 
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 ----------------------------- 21 

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-(Table III) -------------------- 32 

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

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

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

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

Section 5(a)(7) Summary of Significant Reports -------------------- 8 

Section 5(a)(8) Questioned and Unsupported Costs-(Table I) ------ 30 

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

to Better Use (Table II) ------------------------------- 31 

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 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 29 
TABLE I

INSPECTOR GENERAL ISSUED REPORTS 

WITH QUESTIONED COSTS

DOLLAR VALUE (in thousands) 

QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED 

NUMBER COSTS COSTS 

A. For which no Management 0 0 [0]

 decision has been made by 

 commencement of the reporting 

 period 

B. Which were issued during 0 0 [0]

the 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 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 30 
TABLE II 

INSPECTOR GENERAL ISSUED REPORTS WITH 

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE

NUMBER DOLLAR VALUE 

(in thousands) 

A. For which no Management 0 0 

decision has been made by 

the commencement of the

 reporting period 

B. Which were issued during 0 0 

the reporting period 

C. For which a Management 0 0 

decision was made during

the reporting period 

(i) dollar value of 0 0 

 recommendations 

 were agreed to by

 Management 

based on proposed 0 0 

 Management action 

based on proposed 0 0 

 legislative action 

(ii) dollar value of 0 0 

 recommendations 

that were not agreed 

 to by Management 

D. For which no Management 0 0 

decision has been made by 

the end of the reporting period 

E. Reports for which no 0 0 

 Management decision 

was made within six months 

 of issuance 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 31 
TABLE III 

SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS

Recommendations 

Report Title 

Report 

Number 

Issue 

Date Number Closed Open 

Audit of the FEC’s Fiscal 

 Year 2004 Financial 

 Statements 

OIG-04-01 12/04 42 12 30 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 32 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

FEC / OIG Strategic Plan - Fiscal Years 2005 - 2010 

OIG Products: To provide products and 

services that promote positive change in 

FEC policies, programs, and operations. 

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. 

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: Deliver timely, high-quality 

products and services that promote 

positive change. Objective A: Maintain a dynamic strategic 

planning process. 

Strategy: - establish common OIG standards for communicating Strategy:

results; - periodically review and update the strategic plan to

- conduct quality assurance programs; address changing OIG and FEC priorities; and,

- solicit appropriate internal and external review and - identify factors that influence organizational change and

comment; develop short and long term plans to address them.

- comply with applicable statutory guidelines and

standards;

- set realistic and appropriate milestones.

Objective B: Address priority issues and 

concerns of the Commission, Objective B: Plan and conduct costManagement, and Congress. effective work that address critical issues 

and results in positive change. Strategy: Perform work that supports;

- Federal Election Commission and Congressional Strategy: priorities; - solicit FEC and Congressional input in planning OIG - Strategic Management Initiative efforts; activities; 

- develop internal planning mechanisms to support FEC Focus OIG attention in the following areas of emphasis: goals and priorities; - managing change; - ensure that priorities of IG are effectively communicated; - resource allocation in relation to policy objectives; and, - delivery of client service; 

- causes of fraud and inefficiency; and, - identify specific targets for OIG review that are the most 

cost-effective - automation and communication. 

Objective C: Identify customer needs and 

provide products and services to meet 

Objective C: Follow-up and evaluate them. results of OIG products and services to 

assess their effectiveness in promoting Strategy: 

positive change. - establish new customer feed back mechanisms; 

- consider and evaluate customers feedback when 

Strategy: planning and developing products and services; 

- respond to Congressional inquires and request for - Identify, as appropriate, lessons learned to improve briefing and testimony; timeliness and quality; and, - promote open exchange of ideas and information through - conduct follow-up reviews to determine if intended outreach and through use of e-mail; and, results have been achieved. - receive, evaluate, and respond, as appropriate, to 

information received through the OIG hotline and other 

sources. 

Objective D: Satisfy customers, Objective D: Implement efficient, effective, consistent with the independent nature of and consistent resolution and follow-up the OIG. procedures. 

Strategy: Strategy: - establish professional communication and interaction - ensure that IG follow-up procedures are followed and that with customers to promote the open exchange of ideas; management is aware of their role in the process; - incorporate customer feedback, as appropriate; and, - establish common OIG standards for terminology, date - be open to customer-generated solutions and maintenance and communications. options. 

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. 

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 communication between employees is open; 

- provide employees with the tools and incentives they need to 

adequately perform their duties. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 33 
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.

 Website address: http://www.fec.gov/fecig/fecig.shtml. 

Individuals may be subject to disciplinary or criminal action for knowingly 

making a false complaint or providing false information. 

Semiannual Report to Congress – October 1, 2005 – March 31, 2006 Page 34