OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Semiannual Report to Congress 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W., Suite 940 

Washington, DC 20463 

November 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUBJECT PAGE 

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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION............................................................... 7

AUDIT............................................................................................................. 9

AUDIT FOLLOW-UP..................................................................................... 12

INSPECTION REPORT......................................................................................... 14

SPECIAL PROJECT............................................................................................... 16

INVESTIGATIONS................................................................................................ 18

ADDITIONAL OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ACTIVITY........................................................................................................ 19

ECIE AND PCIE ACTIVITY................................................................................. 22

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 24

TABLE I - QUESTIONED COSTS....................................................................... 25

TABLE II - FUNDS PUT TO BETTER USE....................................................... 26

TABLE III - SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORTS WITH

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS OUTSTANDING

FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.............................................. 27

OIG STRATEGIC PLAN....................................................................................... 28

CONTACTING THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR

GENERAL....................................................................................................... 29

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I hereby submit this semiannual report to Congress covering the period 

April 1, 2002 through September 30, 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 

Executiv e Summary recaps the accomplishments and general activities of the 

Office of Inspector General during the six month reporting period. 

The special project report entitled Limited Scope Building Security 

Review (OIG-02-02 – June, 2002), was completed and released by the 

Office of Inspector General during this reporting period. The review was 

conducted to obtain the following objectives: 1) to assess the effectiveness of the 

FEC closed circuit television (CCTV) security system; and 2) to provide 

suggestions to improve overall building security. 

The review was initiated for two reasons. Due to domestic and 

international acts of terrorism that have occurred in recent years, the Federal 

government has placed a greater importance on securing Federal facilities. 

Secondly, the theft of an FEC laptop computer gave rise to concern over the 

adequacy of the FEC’s building security. Furthermore, according to GSA, the FEC 

is responsible for identifying problems with the internal building security cameras 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 1 
and CCTV system equipment, and alerting GSA to any problems that may need 

to be addressed. 

In order to achieve the stated objectives, an assortment of documents 

were reviewed. In addition, a variety of meetings were held to discuss several 

building security issues. The OIG’s evaluation of the CCTV system also included 

a review of both the security cameras and the policies and procedures for the 

system. Although the report did not include any formal recommendations, 

several weaknesses were found that the IG staff believes should be addressed by 

management. However, the OIG concluded that the FEC’s CCTV security system 

is generally effective in providing surveillance of the FEC building. To obtain 

more information relating to the review, see page 16, the section entitled Special 

Project. 

The Office of Inspector General initiated an audit entitled Audit of the 

FEC’s Public Disclosure Process – (OIG-02-03). The OIG received a 

request from Congressman Stephen Horn, Chairman, Oversight Subcommittee on 

Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, 

requesting 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 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 2 
committees and related committee contributions reportedly received by 

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

reporting discrepancies. 

During the preliminary stages of the audit, several meetings have been 

conducted with management to gain an understanding of the details involved in 

the FEC’s disclosure process. Although there is still a considerable amount of 

work to be done before the audit is complete, the OIG continues to make progress 

in executing the audit. To learn more about the audit, see the section entitled 

Audit, starting on page 9. 

The OIG conducted follow-up work on a previously performed audit. The 

audit report entitled, Agency Controls for Governing the Process for 

Procurement of Vendor Training Services (OIG-00-01), released 

September 2000, was conducted to assess economy, efficiency, and effectiveness 

of management controls governing the process for procurement of training 

services obtained through outside vendors. Our audit covered several issues 

which related to staff development at the Commission using outside vendors. 

Although we noted no specific instances of fraud or abuse, based on the 

audit work, we concluded that agency controls governing the process for 

procurement of vendor training services were not effective or efficient. The 

original audit report contained seven recommendations. Prior to this reporting 

period, three of the recommendations were closed. However, as of this reporting 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 3 
period, four recommendations are still pending. For detailed information 

regarding the follow-up work performed see page 12, the Audit Follow-up 

section of this report. 

Because the entire IG staff is committed to assisting with the disclosure 

audit mentioned above, one project has been put on hold. During the previous 

semiannual reporting period, the OIG initiated an inspection of the FEC’s 

subscription / publication services. The inspection entitled, Inspection of the 

Commission’s Subscription / Publication Services – OIG -02-01), is 

being conducted 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 reflect the usage of these publications and whether 

or not these publications meet the needs of the Commission. 

Several meetings have been conducted with agency officials. One in 

particular was with the FEC Administrative Officer. This meeting was conducted 

to obtain agency publication acquisition policies and other information related to 

the subscription and publication services of the Commission. Although this 

project has been placed on hold, page 14 contains information pertaining to the 

work completed thus far on the inspection. 

The OIG investigates complaints and information received from 

Commission employees, management officials or others concerning possible 

violations of FEC programs and operations. Three requests for investigations 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 4 
were received by the OIG during this six month reporting period. For further 

details, refer to the Investigations section located on page 18. 

Listed below is a general overview of additional work performed by the 

Office of Inspector General over the past six months. Starting on page 19, in the 

section entitled Additional Office of Inspector General Activity, items 

are described in greater detail. 

• Every year the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the 

Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency assembles a progress 

report which is a compilation of the major accomplishments of the IG 

community. During this reporting period, the OIG reviewed and 

provided comments to the draft version of the ECIE / PCIE FY 2001 

Progress Report to the President. When the report is finalized and 

released, all ECIE / PCIE members, as well as the President and House 

and Senate Committees will receive copies. 

• The OIG also provided comments on the GAO draft report entitled 

Inspectors General: Issues Related to the Consolidation of IG Offices. 

GAO developed a survey which included 28 key elements related to IG 

independence. A draft version of the report was issued to all IG’s with 

a request that a consolidated response be coordinated through the 

PCIE/ECIE Vice Chairs. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 5 
• The IG, as a member of the ECIE, maintains active membership with 

the council and its associated activities. During this reporting period, 

the Inspector General served on the ECIE 2002 Awards Review Panel. 

• The Special Assistant to the IG continues to monitor legislative 

proposals which could directly or indirectly impact the FEC / OIG. 

During this reporting period, the Special Assistant attended the 

Legislative Hearing on HR 4685, the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act 

of 2002. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 6 
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. 

The Office of Inspector General is dedicated to assisting the Federal 

Election Commission as it continues to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

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

agencies required to have an Inspector General under the 1988 amendments to 

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

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

as follows: 

• conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the 

Federal Election Commission’s programs and operations; 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 7 
• 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 Inspector General, Lynne A. McFarland, reports directly to the six 

Commissioners. The OIG staff consists of three additional staff members – two 

Auditors and one Special Assistant, for a total of four. The OIG remains focused 

upon providing the highest level of professionalism and quality while conducting 

audits, inspections, investigations, and special reviews. 

For the past three fiscal years, the OIG has requested contract money to 

enable the office to expand its audit capability. As of this date, we have not 

received any additional funds to enable us to contract out for audit assistance. It 

is the OIG’s plan to again request funds for FY’04. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 8 
AUDIT 

TITLE: Audit of the FEC’s Public Disclosure Process

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG – 02-03

RELEASE DATE: In Progress

PURPOSE: The OIG received a request from Congressman 

Stephen Horn, Chairman, Oversight Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, 

Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, requesting 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. 

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) Committee produced two 

reports, the first entitled Re-establishing Institutional Integrity at the FEC: Ten 

Common Sense Campaign Finance Disclosure Reforms, March 5, 1998 and the 

second entitled At the Federal Election Commission Things just Don’t Add Up, 

March 28, 2001. The POGO reports documented perceived problems with the 

Federal Election Commission’s management of information. Congressman Horn is 

particularly interested in a review of issues discussed in the two reports. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 9 
Because the OIG has never conducted an audit of the FEC’s disclosure 

process, a considerable amount of time has been obligated to the disclosure 

process procedures. In our efforts to prepare for the audit, the OIG met with 

management officials to obtain their opinion on whether the problems cited in the 

POGO reports are significant, and if so, what actions has or will be taken to 

address the deficiencies cited in the reports. In addition, the IG held an audit 

planning staff meeting so audit steps and objectives could be discussed and to 

inform staff members about the magnitude of this audit. The IG staff began to 

review documents that contained information related to the disclosure process. 

The work completed thus far on the audit has been focused on two primary 

areas: 1) documenting and understanding the FEC’s disclosure process; and 2) 

analyzing campaign finance data. To document and understand the FEC’s 

disclosure process, meetings have been conducted with management and staff 

from the three primary offices involved in the FEC disclosure process. The 

results of those meetings were summarized, and information incorporated into 

documents detailing the FEC’s disclosure process. As the IG office completes the 

first phase of the audit, work has now begun on the analyzing the campaign 

finance data. 

The second primary area the OIG has devoted time to is downloading 

campaign finance data from the FEC’s Internet site and the creation of computer 

databases. The information was downloaded so that the data can be analyzed to 

determine the extent of disclosure discrepancies, if any. The OIG is planning to 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 10 
analyze the campaign finance data using Microsoft Access, a database program 

that will enable the IG office to analyze very large data files that detail the 

campaign finance activity for several election cycles. These large data files 

contain contributions and other financial information related to Federal elections. 

Analyzing the campaign finance data has been time consuming, in part 

because the OIG staff has had to learn Microsoft Access, the computer program 

necessary to analyze the data. The OIG continues to work with the data files, and 

has sought technical assistance from the FEC’s Data Systems Development 

Division (DSDD). 

Although there is still a considerable amount of work to be done, the OIG 

has made major progress on the audit, and is determined to have the audit 

completed as soon as possible. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 11 
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 purpose of conducting this follow-up was to 

determine whether corrective action had been taken to address the four 

recommendations that are currently outstanding. The primary objective of the 

original audit was to assess economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of management 

controls governing the process for procurement of training services obtained 

through outside vendors. 

During the audit, the OIG used various methods of data collection including 

staff interviews, document reviews, and the examination of individual training 

records. To determine whether or not the FEC has in place management controls 

required by OMB directives and Federal regulations, we also performed an 

assessment of the system of management controls and operational practices 

related to the process for procurement of outside vendor training services. 

Seven total recommendations were made and three recommendations 

were closed earlier. However, four recommendations are still outstanding. The 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 12 
outstanding recommendations suggested management develop written policies & 

procedures that establish and document effective management controls; design 

and implement management controls to ensure each training request is uniformly 

processed through the agency; include all cost of training on the request for 

training (SF-182), including related expenses estimated and reported on the 

travel authorization form; and develop and implement a computer information 

system to replace the paper based system of records currently maintained for 

requesting and acquiring vendor training services. 

The follow-up work conducted during this reporting period included the 

OIG providing a memorandum to the Personnel Director requesting a status 

report on the outstanding recommendations. According to the Personnel 

Director, procedures addressing the outstanding recommendation have been 

drafted but not implemented. Therefore, the recommendations will remain open 

until implemented and verified by the OIG. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 13 
INSPECTION REPORT 

TITLE: Inspection of the Commission’s Subscription / 

Publication Services 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG – 02-01

RELEASE DATE: On Hold

PURPOSE: 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 preliminary stages of 

the inspection, the OIG inspected various forms used to request publications, 

procurement requests, and purchase orders for subscriptions. To accomplish the 

main objectives of the inspection, the auditor reviewed prior OIG work related to 

acquisitions and performed several detailed analyses of publication usage among 

agency divisions. 

The procedures completed thus far on the inspection include developing an 

inspection guide using information obtained through interviews with Commission 

personnel. After the inspection guide was developed, the OIG held a meeting 

with the FEC Administrative Officer. The meeting was held to obtain agency 

publication acquisition policies and related information. To obtain information 

relating to the development of effective surveys and questionnaires, an Internet 

search was conducted by the auditor. A survey was also developed to asses the 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 14 
usage of current publication and publication services included in the FEC budget. 

In addition, the auditor also contacted other ECIE regulatory agencies with 

similar federal law enforcement responsibilities to obtain their 2001 fiscal year 

publication budget amounts. The results of this comparison was summarized and 

included in the working papers. 

Although this inspection was introduced during the previous reporting 

period and continued into this reporting period, the IG staff is committed to 

assisting with the disclosure audit mentioned in the audit section of this report. 

Therefore the inspection is in on hold until further notice. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 15 
SPECIAL PROJECT 

TITLE: Limited Scope Building Security Review 

ASSIGNMENT #: OIG – 02-02

RELEASE DATE: June, 2002

PURPOSE: This limited scope building security review was 

conducted to assess the effectiveness of the building security cameras and 

address the building security issues that arose concerning the theft of a laptop 

computer. The objectives of the review were to: 1) assess the effectiveness of the 

FEC’s closed circuit television (CCTV) security system; and 2) provide 

suggestions to improve overall building security, if warranted.

The review was initiated for two reasons. First, the Federal government 

has placed a greater importance on securing Federal facilities due to domestic and 

international acts of terrorism that have occurred in recent years. Second, the 

theft of a laptop computer in January, 2002 gave rise to concern over the 

adequacy of the FEC’s building security. The theft occurred during the business 

day and was perpetrated by an unknown individual while Commission staff 

members worked in offices in the direct vicinity of the theft. 

According to GSA, the FEC is responsible for identifying problems with the 

internal building security cameras and CCTV system equipment, and alerting 

GSA to any problems that may need to be addressed. In order to achieve the 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 16 
stated objectives, the auditor reviewed a variety of documents. The OIG also 

reviewed a recording from the FEC’s CCTV system to determine whether or not 

the security cameras provide effective surveillance of the FEC building. An array 

of meetings were held to further discuss building security issues. Additional 

meetings were arranged with the Personnel office to discuss the Commission’s 

security badge procedures. Furthermore, officials from other Federal agencies 

were contacted to discuss their particular security procedures for securing public 

reading rooms. 

The OIG’s evaluation of the CCTV system included a review of both the 

security cameras and the policies and procedures for the system. The OIG 

concluded that the FEC’s CCTV security system is generally effective in providing 

surveillance of the FEC building. Although the report does not include any formal 

recommendations, we did find several weaknesses that we feel should be 

addressed by management to improve the CCTV security system and the FEC’s 

building access control policies. The suggestions contained in the report were 

intended to alert management to weaknesses found and to suggest improvement. 

The OIG believes management has taken the necessary steps to address many of 

the weaknesses reflected in the report. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 17 
INVESTIGATIONS 

Investigative matters pursued by the Office of Inspector General 

are generally initiated as a result of allegations received from FEC Commissioners, 

managers, employees, or other individuals who contact the OIG directly. 

Occasionally the OIG conducts a preliminary inquiry to determine if an 

investigation is warranted. 

There were no pending investigations as of the beginning of this reporting 

period. However, during the course of this reporting period, the OIG received 

three requests for investigations. One investigation has been opened and is in the 

process of being completed. The other two cases are being held in abeyance due 

to the lack of staff resources. As the open investigation is completed, the inactive 

cases will be reviewed for further action. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 18 
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 a yearly basis, the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency 

and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency assembles a 

progress report which is a compilation of the major fiscal year 

accomplishments of the IG community. During this reporting period, 

the OIG reviewed and provided comments to the draft version of the 

PCIE / ECIE FY 2001 Progress Report to the President. 

The Council asked each PCIE / ECIE Inspector General to provide the 

following information to be included into the report: 1) appropriation 

amounts; 2) FTE’s authorized / actual; 3) audit / inspection or 

evaluation reports issued; 4) investigations closed; 5) complaints 

processed; and 6) congressional testimonies. The Council also 

requested that a description of any reviews conducted or assistance 

provided as a direct result the September 11th terrorist attacks and 

plans to address President Bush’s Management Initiative was also 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 19 
asked to be incorporated into the report. The final draft of the report 

was reviewed for accuracy. Once finalized, the report will be forwarded 

to the President, the House and Senate Committees, and all PCIE / 

ECIE members. 

• The IG’s office also provided comments on the GAO Draft Report, 

Inspectors General: Issues Related to the Consolidation of IG Offices. 

GAO developed a survey which included 28 key elements related to IG 

independence. The survey was developed to obtain the IG’s views on 

how independence, quality of work, and use of resources might be 

affected by: 1) converting DFE IGs from appointment by their agency 

heads to appointment by the President with Senate confirmation; and 

2) consolidating IG offices by moving smaller DFE IG offices into larger 

Presidential IG offices. 

In addition, the survey also requested that the IGs provide information 

about the potential impact of a permanent statutory alternative to the 

PCIE / ECIE and the usefulness of a budget threshold to determine 

where IG offices should be established. A draft version of the report 

was issued to all IGs with a request that a consolidated response be 

coordinated through the PCIE / ECIE Vice Chairs. The IG provided 

comments on several versions of the ECIE response, which was 

provided to the council and subsequently forwarded to GAO. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 20 
• The IG continues to attend the Executive Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency (ECIE) meetings and remains active on various issues 

impacting the OIG community. During this reporting period, the 

Inspector General served on the ECIE 2002 Awards Review Panel. 

The panel was responsible for reviewing the nominations submitted by 

the ECIE IG community for awards to be given during a joint PCIE / 

ECIE awards ceremony. 

• The Special Assistant to the IG continues to monitor legislative 

proposals which could directly or indirectly impact the FEC / OIG. 

During the course of this reporting period, the special assistant 

attended the hearing on HR 4685, the Accountability of Tax Dollars 

Act of 2002, initiated by the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, 

Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations, to listen to 

discussions on a proposal to require the 26 non-CFO IGs to perform 

annual financial statement audits. The reporting requirements apply to 

all agencies but OMB is authorized to exempt those agencies that do not 

meet the $25 million threshold and those that pose low risks for errors. 

The notes taken and information collected was shared with the entire 

IG staff. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 21 
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, as a member of the ECIE, maintains active 

membership with the Council and its associated activities. The ECIE identifies, 

reviews, and discuss issues that are of interest to the IG community. During the 

time frame of this reporting period, the Inspector General (or staff) attended the 

following training, programs and / or conferences: 

• ECIE - Monthly Meetings 

• ECIE - Liaison Meetings 

• ECIE / PCIE – Semiannual Reports Coordinators (SARC) Workgroup 

Meeting 

• ECIE / PCIE – 2002 Association of Directors of Investigation 

Conference – “911 – The Investigative Community’s Call to Action” 

• ECIE / PCIE – 2002 Annual Conference – Challenges of a New World 

• PCIE / ECIE – Ethics Program Enforcement – The IG Role 

• PCIE / ECIE – Human Resources Committee – Poor Performance 

Seminar 

• PCIE / ECIE – Federal Audit Executive Council Meeting 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 22 
• PCIE - Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Interest 

Group Roundtable Discussion 

• PCIE – Inspectors’ General Information Technology Roundtable 

Discussion 

• PCIE – Human Resources Committee: Government Charge Cards 

Training 

• PCIE – Future Governance and the OIG’s Roundtable Discussion 

• The Association of Government Accountants – Transforming the 

Government Enterprise 

• Inspector General Auditor Training Institute – Auditing to Improve 

Processes 

• Institute of Internal Auditor’s – 2002 International Conference 

• Institute of Internal Auditor’s – Certified Government Auditing 

Professional Exam 

• Intergovernmental Audit Forum – 14th Biennial Forum of Government 

Auditors: Sailing Through Unchartered Waters 

• National Institute of Standards and Technology – Computer Security 

Seminar 

• National Institute of Standards and Technology – Continuity of 

Operations: Planning & Response in Today’s Environment 

• National Seminars Group – Business Writing & Grammar Skills 

• Office of Management and Budget – Government Information 

Security Reform Act (GISRA) 

• Federal Election Commission - Administrative Liaison Meetings 

• Federal Election Commission – New Employee Orientation 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 23 
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---------------------------------------------19 

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---------------------------------------------27 

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----------------------------------9 

Section 5(a)(8) Questioned and Unsupported Costs-----------------------------25 

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

to Better Use------------------------------------------------------26 

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 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 24 
TABLE I 

INSPECTOR GENERAL ISSUED REPORTS 

WITH QUESTIONED COSTS 

DOLLAR VALUE (in thousands) 

QUESTIONED 

NUMBER COSTS COSTS 

UNSUPPORTED 

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 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 25 
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 

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 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 26 
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

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 27
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. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 28 
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. 

April 1, 2002 – September 30, 2002 Page 29