OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Semiannual Report to Congress

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W., Suite 940 

Washington, DC 20463 

May 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION......................................................... 5

AUDIT............................................................................................................ 7

AUDIT FOLLOW-UP.................................................................................... 10

INVESTIGATIONS....................................................................................... 12

ADDITIONAL OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ACTIVITY............................................................................................... 13

ECIE AND PCIE ACTIVITY......................................................................... 16

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS................................................................. 18

TABLE I - QUESTIONED COSTS................................................................ 19

TABLE II - FUNDS PUT TO BETTER USE................................................. 20

TABLE III - SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OUTSTANDING

FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS........................................ 21

OIG STRATEGIC PLAN............................................................................... 22

CONTACTING THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR

GENERAL.............................................................................................. 23

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This semiannual report to Congress, covering the period October 1, 2002 

through March 31, 2003, reflects our efforts to remain in accordance with the 

requirements of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The Executive 

Summary provides a summarization, over the past six months, of the major 

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

of Inspector General (OIG). The audits and investigations, as well as other 

activities described in this report have one common attribute – all are aimed at 

improving the accountability and performance of the Federal Election 

Commission. 

Due to an inquiry received from Congressman Stephen Horn, Chairman, 

Oversight Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and 

Intergovernmental Relations, the Office of Inspector General initiated the audit 

entitled Audit of the FEC’s Public Disclosure Process – (OIG-02-03). 

Congressman Horn requested a complete review of how the Commission carries 

out its disclosure responsibilities and how the use of technology and controls to 

monitor and remedy reporting discrepancies can be improved. 

The objectives of the audit are to: 1) determine the extent, if any, of 

disclosure differences between candidate contributions reported by political 

committees and related committee contributions reportedly received by 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 1 
candidates; and 2) determine whether an adequate process is in place to remedy 

reporting discrepancies. 

Because the Commission’s public disclosure system is a multifaceted 

process, a substantial amount of meetings have been conducted with management 

officials in order to understand the entire disclosure process. During those 

meetings, the data coding and entry functions of the disclosure process was 

discussed and documented. In addition, a campaign finance computer database 

was created which will allow the OIG to perform a detailed analysis of campaign 

finance data. An extensive amount of time has been devoted and the OIG staff 

remains committed to completing this audit. For more information see the 

section entitled Audit, starting on page 7. 

As reported in the previous semiannual report, the audit entitled Agency 

Controls for Governing the Process for Procurement of Vendor 

Training Services (OIG-00-01) still has four outstanding recommendations. 

The audit, released September 2000, was originally conducted to assess 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of management controls governing the 

process for procurement of training services obtained through outside vendors. 

The follow-up work conducted included reviewing various documents and 

working papers pertaining to the training audit. 

While the OIG concluded that agency controls governing the process for 

procurement of vendor training services were not effective or efficient, no specific 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 2 
instances of fraud or abuse was detected. For a detailed description of the followup work conducted, see the Audit Follow-up section, found on page 10. 

The Inspector General staff has the authority to investigate complaints 

and information received from Commission employees, as well as management 

officials or others concerning possible violations of FEC programs and operations. 

During this reporting period, the OIG received one hotline inquiry. The 

individual, who requested anonymity, contacted the OIG’s hotline regarding an 

FEC employee. Based on the information provided, the OIG initiated a 

preliminary inquiry to determine the validity of the allegations. For more 

information, refer to page 12, the section entitled Investigations. 

Significant accomplishments, as well as general activities pertaining to the 

Office of Inspector General are summarized below. However, items are described 

in greater detail, starting on page 13, the section entitled Additional Office of 

Inspector General Activities. 

• During the course of this reporting period, the IG reviewed and 

provided comments to the draft version of the PCIE / ECIE FY 2002 

Progress Report to the President. Annually, the President’s Council on 

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

and Efficiency (ECIE) gathers information for inclusion in the annual 

report to the President. The report highlights the major activities of 

the IG community. In addition to the President, all PCIE / ECIE 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 3 
members, and the House and Senate Committees will receive copies of 

the final version. 

• The PCIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee contacted the OIG to 

assist with their plans to develop a directory of IG reports on 

government purchase and travel credit cards. The OIG provided the 

committee with a copy of the FEC / OIG report entitled Review of the 

Commission Travel – OIG – 96-02. The directory will provide the 

OIG community, Congress, media, agency managers, and the general 

public with a more efficient and comprehensive way to access the work 

already done on the federal credit card program. 

• The OIG received and responded to a questionnaire regarding the 

inspection and evaluation units within federal offices of inspector 

general. The President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, along with 

the Health and Human Services / Office of Inspector General initiated 

the survey. 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 4 
THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

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

agency responsible for administering and implementing the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (FECA). The FEC is governed by a six member committee 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. 

Changes have occurred in the leadership of the Federal Election 

Commission during the course of this reporting period. The OIG warmly 

welcomes Ellen L. Weintraub as Chair of the Commission. Bradley A. Smith 

serves as the Vice Chair and the four remaining Commissioners are – Michael E. 

Toner; Danny L. McDonald; David M. Mason; and Scott E. Thomas. 

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, waste, 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 5 
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) keep the Commissioners and 

Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies in FEC 

agency programs and operations, and the need for corrective action. 

Lynne A. McFarland serves as the Inspector General of the Federal 

Election Commission and reports directly to the six Commissioners. The OIG 

staff consists of four individuals – in addition to the IG, there are two Auditors 

and one Special Assistant. We remain focused upon providing the highest level of 

professionalism and quality work related to the detection and prevention of fraud, 

waste, abuse, and mismanagement. 

In order to expand its audit capabilities, the Inspector General has 

requested additional funds to enable the OIG to contract out for audit assistance. 

As of this reporting period, the request has not been granted. The OIG will 

continue to petition for these additional funds. 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 6 
AUDIT 

TITLE: Audit of the FEC’s Public Disclosure Process

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG – 02-03

RELEASE DATE: In Progress

PURPOSE: During the previous reporting period, the Office of 

Inspector General initiated the audit of the Commission’s Public Disclosure 

process because the OIG received an inquiry from Congressman Stephen Horn, 

Chairman, Oversight Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial 

Management and Intergovernmental Relations. Congressman Horn requested a 

complete review of how the Commission is carrying out its disclosure 

responsibilities and how the Commission can improve its use of technology and its 

controls to monitor and remedy reporting discrepancies.

The objectives of the audit are to: 1) determine the extent, if any, of 

disclosure differences between candidate contributions reported by political 

committees and related committee contributions reportedly received by 

candidates; and 2) determine whether an adequate process is in place to remedy 

reporting discrepancies. Congressman Horn was particularly concerned about 

issues raised in two reports created by The Project on Government Oversight 

(POGO) Committee. The Office of Inspector General agreed that the first 

priority is the disclosure audit and continues to dedicate time and effort to the 

progression of the audit. Because the Federal Election Commission’s public 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 7 
disclosure system is a multifaceted process, a substantial amount of research had 

to be obtained in order to understand the entire disclosure process. 

To achieve our audit objectives, the OIG held several meetings with the 

Data Systems Development Division to document the data coding and entry 

function of the disclosure process. In order to recognize any problems and 

provide valuable recommendations, a campaign finance computer database, and a 

computer spreadsheet containing campaign finance data was created. The 

computer database contains hundreds of thousands of financial transactions 

related to federal campaign finance activity and will allow the OIG to perform a 

detailed analysis of campaign finance data. 

Additional meetings were held with the manager of the Data Entry and 

Coding Branch to discuss the processing of campaign finance information which 

was incorporated into process narratives. To describe the agency’s disclosure 

process, the IG staff also developed flowcharts. The flowcharts were created to 

show the Commission’s entire process for receiving campaign data, which included 

the electronic filing process and hard copy filings. 

Additional work associated with the audit also included reviewing and 

analyzing past suggestions and recommendations for amendments to the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (FECA) as it relates to the comparison of political 

committee and candidate data. 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 8 
As the audit progressed, the OIG provided Congressman Horn with two 

status reports which included the audit objectives, audit work completed and still 

in progress, and the planned audit steps. However, neither of the reports 

contained any findings or conclusions. The IG staff remains committed to 

carrying out this audit and continues to review and summarize documentation to 

assist in the completion of the audit. 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 9 
AUDIT FOLLOW-UP 

TITLE: Agency Controls Governing the Process for 

Procurement of Vendor Training Services 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG – 00-01 

RELEASE DATE: September, 2000 

(audit report) 

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

PURPOSE: The Office of Inspector General conducted this followup to determine if corrective action had been taken to address the four 

outstanding recommendations. 

The audit was originally conducted to assess economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness of management controls governing the process for procurement of 

training services obtained through outside vendors. The audit, released 

September 2000, covered numerous issues as it relates to staff development at 

the Commission using outside vendors. 

The follow-up work conducted included reviewing the OIG Audit / 

Inspection follow-up log to determine what recommendations were still 

outstanding. The working papers for the training audit were also reviewed as well 

as management’s actions taken thus far to address the audit findings and 

recommendations. Management supplied the OIG with draft procedures 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 10 
associated with the training audit. The OIG reviewed the draft procedures. 

However, management was informed that the outstanding recommendations 

would not be closed until the procedures are issued in final. The OIG will continue 

to monitor the status of the four outstanding recommendations. 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 11 
INVESTIGATIONS 

The Office of Inspector General receives requests to conduct investigations 

from many sources. To enable direct and confidential contact with the FEC / 

OIG, public complaints or concerns continue to be received through the OIG voice 

mail, which also serves as the OIG complaints hotline after hours. The 

information received over the hotline is then analyzed to determine if further 

inquiry is warranted. During this reporting period, the OIG received one hotline 

inquiry. The individual, who requested anonymity, contacted the OIG’s hotline 

regarding an FEC employee. Based on the information provided, the OIG 

launched a preliminary inquiry to determine the validity of the allegations. 

In a previous semiannual report, the OIG reported receiving three 

requests asking that an investigation be conducted. One investigation was opened 

and is still in the process of being completed. The additional cases have not been 

activated due to lack staff availability. The OIG plans to evaluate the inactive 

cases to determine whether they warrant an investigation. 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 12 
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 / ECIE Legislative 

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

agenda items and attends Finance Committee meetings. 

• On an annual basis, the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency 

and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency gathers 

information for inclusion in the annual report to the President which 

outlines the major accomplishments of the IG Community. During the 

course of this reporting period, the IG reviewed and provided 

comments to the draft version of the PCIE / ECIE FY 2002 Progress 

Report to the President. Once the report is completed and released, 

the President, and the appropriate House and Senate Committees will 

be given copies. 

• On several occasions, the Office of Inspector General provides 

assistance to other OIG’s or PCIE / ECIE committees with projects that 

could benefit the IG community. During this reporting period, the 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 13 
PCIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee contacted the Office of 

Inspector General and requested any IG reports that dealt with 

government purchase and travel cards. The PCIE Inspection 

Committee is in the process of developing a directory that will provide 

the OIG community, Congress, media, agency managers, and the 

general public with a more efficient and comprehensive way to access 

work previously done on the federal credit card program. A copy of the 

OIG report entitled Review of the Commission Travel – OIG-96-02 

was forwarded to the PCIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee. 

• The OIG received and responded to a questionnaire regarding the 

inspection and evaluation units within federal offices of inspector 

general. The President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, along with 

the Health and Human Services / Office of Inspector General initiated 

the survey. The OIG responded to the questionnaire by providing a 

brief statement indicating the FEC OIG has neither a large staff nor a 

budget dedicated to inspections. 

• The OIG also responded to a questionnaire in which we provided 

feedback on the Inspector’s General Auditor Training Institute 

(IGATI) financial audit courses. IGATI developed the questionnaire to 

aid in determining how they could better serve the training needs of the 

IG Community with respect to financial statement audit requirements. 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 14 
• The OIG honored another request during this reporting period. The 

Department of Commerce OIG needed assistance in assembling a 

pricing matrix that compares what each IG office spends on the 

preparation of their Semiannual Report to Congress. The OIG 

responded to the inquiry by providing how the OIG produces and 

distributes the semiannual reports. Our reports are produced in-house 

and distributed to the members of the PCIE and ECIE, the President, 

and various members of Congress. The semiannual reports are also 

available via the FEC website at www.fec.gov/fecig.htm. 

• The OIG provided the FEC Information Division with a brief synopsis 

of our most significant activities for calendar year 2002. The 

information forwarded included new activities and major changes to our 

operations and their beneficial effects, which will be used to assist the 

Information Division in preparing for the FEC 2002 Annual Report. 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 15 
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 Commission’s Inspector General is a member of the ECIE and has 

provided input into a number of initiatives proposed by the Council and its 

associated activities. The ECIE serves as a forum for the exchange of views for 

the inspector general community. The ECIE identifies, reviews, and discusses 

issues that are of interest to the IG community. For the period October 1, 2002 

through March 31, 2003, the Inspector General (or staff) attended the following 

training, programs, seminars and / or conferences: 

• ECIE - Monthly Meetings 

• ECIE / PCIE – 2003 Joint Conference: Planning for the Future 

• PCIE / ECIE – Awards Ceremony 

• PCIE – Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Roundtable 

Panel Discussion 

• U.S. Department of Transportation – Executive Briefing on the OIG 

Knowledge Management System (KMS) 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 16 
• Inspector General Criminal Investigator Academy – I.G. Investigator: 

Basic Non-Criminal Investigator Training Program 

• Federal Audit Executive Council - Roundtable Discussion: The OMB’s 

Performance and Financial Management Super Circular 

• Joint Financial Management Improvement Program (JFMIP) – 32nd 

Annual Financial Management Conference 

• Association of Directors of Investigation (ADI) Conference – Working 

Together to Assure Accountability, Security and Justice 

• Financial Statement Audit Networking Meeting – issues discussed 

included the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; status of OIG financial 

Audits of FY 2002; Revised Government Auditing Standards 

• Financial Statement Audit Networking Meeting – issues relating to 

auditing agencies financial statements was discussed 

• Federal Trade Commission – Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 

2002 

• Human Resources / Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) Roundtable Discussion – How investigative organizations can 

successfully measure and promote efficient and effective performance 

• Federal Election Commission – Administrative Liaison Meetings 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 17 
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---------------------------------------------13 

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---------------------------------------------21 

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

Section 5(a)(8) Questioned and Unsupported Costs-----------------------------19 

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

to Better Use------------------------------------------------------20 

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, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 18 
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 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, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 19 
TABLE II 

INSPECTOR GENERAL ISSUED REPORTS WITH 

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE 

NUMBER DOLLAR VALUE 

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 

(in thousands) 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

October 1, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 20 
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, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 21
r

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. 

Oc tober 1, 2002 – M a c h 31, 2003 Page 22 
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, 2002 – March 31, 2003 Page 23