U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FINAL REPORT: 

Administration of Payments Received 

Under the Help America Vote Act by the 

Arizona Secretary of State 

APRIL 28, 2003 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2011 

Report No. 

E-HP-AZ-04-11 

August 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300
 

Washington, DC 20005
 

August 22, 2011 

Memorandum 

To:	 Thomas Wilkey 

Executive Director 

From:	 Curtis W. Crider 

Inspector General 

Subject: Final Audit Report - Administration of Payments Received Under the Help 

America Vote Act by the Arizona Secretary of State (Assignment Number EHP-AZ-04-11) 

We contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of Clifton 

Gunderson LLP (Clifton Gunderson) to audit the administration of payments received 

under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) by the Arizona Secretary of State (SOS). The 

contract required that the audit be done in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Clifton Gunderson is responsible for the attached 

auditor’s report and the conclusions expressed therein. 

In its audit of the SOS, Clifton Gunderson concluded that, except for the 

questionable use of HAVA funds for promotional activities, the lack of personnel 

certifications, and the maintenance of adequate property records, our audit concluded that 

the SOS generally accounted for and expended HAVA funds in accordance with the 

HAVA requirements and complied with the financial management requirements 

established by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The SOS also complied with 

section 251 requirements. 

In his May 10, 2011 response (Appendix A-2), the SOS generally agreed with the 

findings and recommendations, except for the questioned costs for Kids Voting Arizona. 

In his July 6, 2011 response to the draft report (Appendix A-1), the SOS confirmed his 

initial responses to the audit results. 

Also, we have included in the report the EAC response to the draft report 

(Appendix A-3), dated July 15, 2011, which stated the action proposed to assist the SOS 

in resolving the findings and recommendations. We would appreciate being kept 

informed of the actions taken on our recommendations as we will track the status of their 

implementation. Please respond in writing to the finding and recommendation included in 

this report by October 24, 2011. Your response should include information on actions 

taken or planned, targeted completion dates, and titles of officials responsible for 

implementation. 
 

The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector General (5 U.S.C. § 

App.3) requires semiannual reporting to Congress on all audit reports issued, actions 

taken to implement audit recommendations, and recommendations that have not been 

implemented. Therefore, this report will be included in our next semiannual report to 

Congress. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (202) 566-3125. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT
 


ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED
 


UNDER THE
 


HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT
 


BY THE
 


STATE OF ARIZONA
 


APRIL 28, 2003 Through January 31, 2011 

UNITED STATES
 


ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
 


a1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	


	

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE
 


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

BACKGROUND 

APPENDICES
 


..........................................................................................................................2
	

AUDIT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................3
	

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................4
	

AUDIT RESULTS .......................................................................................................................4
	

Appendix A-1: Secretary of State Response to Draft Report.................................................8
	

Appendix A-2: Secretary of State Responses to Audit Results.............................................9
	

Appendix A-3: U. S. Election Assistance Commission Response to Draft Report.............11
	

Appendix B: Audit Methodology............................................................................................12 

Appendix C: Monetary Impact as of January 31, 2011 .........................................................13
	
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


	

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
 


Performance Audit of the Administration of Payments Received Under the
 


Help America Vote Act by the State of Arizona
 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Clifton Gunderson LLP was engaged by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC or the 

Commission) Office of Inspector General to conduct a performance audit of the Arizona 

Secretary of State (SOS) for the period April 28, 2003 through January 31, 2011 to determine 

whether the SOS used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA or the Act) in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; 

accurately and properly accounted for program income and property purchased with HAVA 

payments, and met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund and for a 

matching contribution. Our audit did not include a determination that the SOS and it sub 

grantees met the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state outlays, commonly 

referred to as Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE). 

On June 28, 2010, the Commission issued a revised definitive policy on the requirements for the 

MOE. The policy included a provision that the states will have 12 months from the date of the 

revised policy to voluntarily submit a revised MOE plan to the EAC. Accordingly, our scope of 

audit did not include a determination of whether the SOS and its subgrantees met the 

requirements for MOE. 

In addition, the Commission requires states to comply with certain financial management 

requirements, specifically: 

•		 Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements with State and Local Governments (also known as the “Common Rule”) as 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations 41 CFR 105-71. 

•		 Expend payments in accordance with cost principles for establishing the allowance or 

disallowance of certain items of cost for federal participation issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in Circular A-87. 

•		 Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I and Title II payments. 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government 

Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Because of inherent 

limitations, a study and evaluation made for the limited purposes of our review would not 

necessarily disclose all weaknesses in administering HAVA payments. 

Except for the questionable use of HAVA funds for promotional activities, the lack of personnel 

certifications, and the maintenance of adequate property records, as discussed below, our audit 

concluded that the SOS generally accounted for and expended HAVA funds in accordance with 

the requirements mentioned above for the period from April 28, 2003 through January 31, 2011. 

The exceptions needing SOS’s management attention are as follows: 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

		

		


	

1.		 SOS incurred unallowable HAVA expenses of $20,000 for the Kids Voting Arizona 

program. 

2.		 SOS did not prepare the semi-annual certifications as required by OMB Circular A-87 for 

the salary and expenses of $147,141 from April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2007. . 

3.		 Records for HAVA funded equipment for one of the six counties we visited did not 

conform to 41 C.F.R. 105-71.132 (f) (the Common Rule). There were errors in the 

information listed for some of the equipment. 

We have included in this report as Appendix A-2 the SOS management’s formal response on 

May 10, 2011 to our notice of findings and recommendations (NFRs). We have also included as 

Appendix A-1 the SOS management’s response on July 6, 2001 to the draft report in which they 

confirmed their initial responses to the audit results. Although we have included management’s 

written responses to our NFRs, such responses have not been subjected to the audit procedures 

and, accordingly, we do not provide any form of assurance on the appropriateness of the 

responses or the effectiveness of the corrective actions described therein. The SOS generally 

agreed with the findings and recommendations except for the questioned costs for Kids Voting 

Arizona. The SOS believes these expenditures are in line with the intent of Section 295 of 

HAVA, the National Student and Parent Mock Elections section, and meet the goals of the 

programs to educate high school age students on the voting process and to encourage 

participation in elections. 

BACKGROUND 

HAVA created the Commission to assist states and insular areas with the improvement of the 

administration of federal elections and to provide funds to states to help implement these 

improvements. HAVA authorizes payments to states under Titles I and II, as follows: 

•		 Title I, Section 101 payments are for activities such as complying with Title III of HAVA for 

uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, 

improving the administration of elections for federal office, educating voters, training 

election officials and poll workers, and developing a state plan for requirements 

payments. 

•		 Title I, Section 102 payments are available only for the replacement of punch card and 

lever action voting systems. 

•		 Title II, Section 251 requirements payments are for complying with Title III requirements 

for voting system equipment; and for addressing provisional voting, voting information, 

statewide voter registration lists, and voters who register by mail. 

Title II also requires that states must: 

•		 Have appropriated funds “equal to 5 percent of the total amount to be spent for such 

activities [activities for which requirements payments are made].” [Section 253(b)(5)]. 

•		 “Maintain the expenditures of the state for activities funded by the [requirements] payment 

at a level that is not less than the level of such expenditures maintained by the state for 

the fiscal year ending prior to November 2000.” [Section 254 (a)(7)]. 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

		

		

		

		


	

•		 Establish an election fund for amounts appropriated by the state “for carrying out the 

activities for which the requirements payment is made,” for the federal requirements 

payments received, for “such other amounts as may be appropriated under law,” and for 

“interest earned on deposits of the fund.” [Section 254 )(b)(1)]. 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Arizona SOS: 

1.		 Used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of HAVA in accordance with 

HAVA and applicable requirements; 

2.		 Accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments and for 

program income; 

3.		 Met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund and for a matching 

contribution except for the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state outlays, 

commonly referred to as Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE). On June 28, 2010, the 

Commission issued a revised definitive policy on the requirements for the MOE. The 

policy included a provision that the states will have 12 months from the date of the 

revised policy to voluntarily submit a revised MOE plan to the EAC. Accordingly, our 

scope of audit did not include a determination of whether the SOS and its subgrantees 

met the requirements for MOE. 

In addition to accounting for HAVA payments, the Act requires states to maintain records that 

are consistent with sound accounting principles that fully disclose the amount and disposition of 

the payments, that identify the project costs financed with the payments and other sources, and 

that will facilitate an effective audit. The Commission requires states receiving HAVA funds to 

comply with certain financial management requirements, specifically: 

1.		 Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements with State and Local Governments (also known as the “Common Rule”) as 

published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 41 CFR 105-71. 

2.		 Expend payments in accordance with cost principles for establishing the allowance or 

disallowance of certain items of cost for federal participation issued by the OMB. 

1

3. Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I and Title II payments. 

1 EAC requires states to submit annual reports on the expenditure of HAVA Sections 101, 102, and 251 funds. 

Through December 31, 2008, for Sections 101 and 102, reports were due on February 28 for the activities of the 

previous calendar year, and, for Section 251, reports were due by March 30 for the activities of the previous fiscal 

year ending on September 30. Beginning in calendar year 2009, all reports will be effective as of September 30, 

20XX for the fiscal year ended that date and will be due by December 31, 20XX. 

3
	
 

 

 

   

                                                             

   

   

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 


	

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We audited the HAVA funds received and disbursed by the SOS from April 28, 2003 through 

January 31, 2011 (93-month period) as shown in the following table: 

FUNDS RECEIVED

TYPE OF

PAYMENT

EAC

PAYMENT

PROGRAM

INCOME

STATE INTEREST

MATCH EARNED

TOTAL

AVAILABLE

FUNDS

DISBURSED

DATA

AS OF

Section 101

Section 102

Section 251

$ 5,451,369

1,564,188

45,516,688

$ 0

0

0

$ 0

0

2,396,588

$ 763,966 $ 6,215,335 $ 2,095,600

0 1,564,188 1,564,188

5,406,754 53,320,030 43,095,027

1/31/2011 

1/31/2011 

1/31/2011 

Total $52,532,245 $ 0 $2,396,588 $6,170,720 $61,099,553 $46,754,815 1/31/2011 

Our audit methodology is set forth in Appendix C. 

AUDIT RESULTS 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government 

Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Because of inherent 

limitations, a study and evaluation made for the limited purposes of our review would not 

necessarily disclose all weaknesses in administering HAVA payments. 

Except for the questionable use of HAVA funds for promotional activities, the lack of personnel 

certifications, and the maintenance of adequate property records, our audit concluded that the 

SOS generally accounted for and expended HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements 

mentioned above. The SOS has taken action on or is working to resolve the exceptions 

described below as set forth in Appendix A-2: 

I. Unallowable Expenses 

The State of Arizona Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) used Section 251 Help America 

Vote Act (HAVA) funds totaling $20,000 that may not be allowable since the program was not 

related to direct voter education. The HAVA requires that funds be used for educating voters. 

The SOS used the funds for the Kids Voting Arizona (KVA) program. The payment included 

$8,000 for the High School Civics Connection Program, $7,000 for the Tribal Election 

Connection Program and $5,000 for the Destination Democracy after School Program. The 

purpose of the program was to inform school age children about the voting process and to 

increase voter turnout since the parents would be involved in assisting the children with the 

program. 

HAVA Section 101(b) Use of Payment describes the qualifying expenditures and includes, in 

part: 

(1)(B) Improving the administration of elections for federal office 

(1)(C) Educating voters concerning voting procedures, voting rights, and voting 

technology 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

		


	

Recommendation: 

1. We recommend that the EAC work with the SOS to decide whether to allow or disallow the 

costs associated with the KVA program. 

SOS Response: 

The SOS disagreed with the finding that providing funds to Kids Voting Arizona would fall 

outside the scope of voter education. The SOS believes that all three programs were targeted 

to high school students, ages 16 to 18, who would be eligible to vote in the next general 

election. He also believes that the programs were in line with the intent of HAVA Section 295, 

the National Student and Parent Mock Elections section, the goals of which were to educate 

high school age students on the voting process and to also encourage participation in elections. 

Auditor’s Response: 

EAC has determined in FAQ-08-005 that the use of HAVA funds to educate non-voters and to 

increase voter turnout is not allowed under HAVA. 

II.	 	 Uncertified Personnel Expenditures 

The SOS did not complete semi-annual certifications for the one full-time employee that worked 

on HAVA activities for the period of April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2007, and the EAC has no 

assurance that the salaries and fringe benefit costs of $147,141 expended from the HAVA fund 

during this period were incurred for work done solely on HAVA activities. However, the SOS did 

obtain the appropriate semi-annual certifications for the one full-time employee for the period of 

April 1, 2007 through the audit period end date of January 31, 2011. 

OMB Circular A-87, in Attachment B Section 8(h)(3) requires that: 

(3) Where employees are expected to work solely on a single federal award or cost 

objective, charges for their salaries and wages will be supported by periodic 

certifications that the employees worked solely on that program for the period 

covered by the certification. These certifications will be prepared at least semiannually and will be signed by the employee or supervisory official having firsthand 

knowledge of the work performed by the employee. 

Recommendation: 

2.		 We recommend that the EAC work with the SOS to determine the appropriate corrective 

action regarding the lack of periodic payroll certifications. 

SOS Response: 

The SOS acknowledged that the personnel certifications were missing for the period April 1, 

2004 through March 31, 2007, and assured the EAC that the salaries and employee related 

expenses during the period were spent solely for HAVA related work. The SOS included 

retroactive certifications with this response to correct the deficiencies. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

		

III.	 	 Property Records 

The HAVA voting equipment listing we received from one of the six counties we visited did not 

conform to the requirements of 41 CFR 105-71.132, (the Common Rule). We identified the 

following discrepancies: 

•		 The county’s accounting records showed that the county purchased 106 machines, and 

we counted 106 machines on site. However, an Automark TSX voting machine could not 

be located amongst the voting machines because the county had not properly tagged all 

of the equipment. 

•		 A duplex printer was listed on the inventory records, but in fact was not an asset owned 

by the county. The county’s property records erroneously included the printer. 

•		 A Dell personal computer was listed on the inventory records for the county recorder’s 

office, but was located at the county elections office. 

The Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State 

and Local Governments 41 CFR § 105-71.132 (f), (“the Common Rule”) states that in the event 

a grantee or subgrantee is provided federally-owned equipment: 

(2) Grantees or subgrantees will manage the equipment in accordance with Federal agency 

rules and procedures, and submit an annual inventory listing. 

Recommendation: 

3.		 We recommend that the SOS require the staff of both the county elections office and the 

recorder’s office to conduct a physical inventory of all HAVA-funded equipment to ensure 

that the property records reflect the correct information. 

SOS Response: 

The SOS concurred with the finding and stated that they were requiring the staff at the county to 

conduct a full physical inventory of all HAVA funded equipment to ensure that the property 

records reflect the correct information. In addition, they are requiring that property tags be 

secured to the proper equipment and cross-referenced to the manufacturer’s serial numbers. 

The SOS also stated that a follow-up audit will be conducted with the county to ensure 

compliance. 

**************************************** 

We provided a draft of our report to the appropriate individuals of the Arizona SOS and the 

Commission. We considered any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

The EAC responded on July 15, 2011 and generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations. The EAC stated that, while they generally agreed with the findings, they 

would work with the SOS to gather additional information about the Kids Voting Arizona program 

to determine whether the costs should be allowed or disallowed. The EAC’s complete response 

is included as Appendix A-3 

6 
 

 

 


	


 


	

CG performed its work between February 22, 2011 and March 10, 2011.

a1 
	
 Calverton, Maryland 

March 23, 2011 

7
	
KEN BENNETT 


SECRETARY OF STATE 


STATE OF ARIZONA 


2G12 

July 6, 2011 

Curtis Crider 

Office of the Inspector General 

Election Assistance Commission 

1201 New York Avenue NW Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Curtis: 

The draft report entitled "Performance Audit Report - Administration of Payments 

Received Under the Help America Vote Act by the State of Arizona" dated March 23, 

2011 accurately reflects OUf responses to the findings. We had hoped that our responses 

to the Unallowable Expenses Finding and the Uncertified Personnel Expenditures would 

have adequately addressed each finding. Since those two findings are still in the draft 

audit report, we will wait to address those points with the Election Assistance 

Commission. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Arizona Secretary of State 

1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor 


Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 


Telephone (602) 542-4285 Fax (602) 542-1575 


www.azsos.gov 
KEN BENNETT 


SECRETARY OF STATE 


STATE OF ARIZONA 


Mr. Curtis Crider 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Curtis: 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the three N olice of Findings and 

Recommendations. We appreciated having Nick and Dottie on site to perform the audit. 

Please find our responses to the three Notice of Findings and Recommendations (NFR) 

for Arizona. 

NFR #1 - Questioned Costs 

The first comment we have on NFR #1 is that we do not agree with the finding. The 

comments from the Audit Personnel stated that we agreed with it. This most likely got 

confused since we did state that after we read other state audits, we anticipated the Kid's 

Voting expense being a possible finding. 

We do not agree with the finding since all three ofthe programs of Kid's Voting that the 

Arizona Secretary of State funded were targeted at high school students. In Arizona, a 

registrant can be a person who will be 18 years of age by the next General Election. This 

can include registrations of ages 16 to 18 years old. All three ofthe programs funded 

with HAVA monies targeted a group of students of whom many were of an age to 

properly register to vote for the next General Election. All the programs funded with 

HA V A monies were much in line with the intent of Section 295 of HA V A, the National 

Student and Parent Mock Elections section. The goals of the programs were to educate 

high school age students on the voting process and to also encourage participation in 

elections. 

NFR #2 - Personnel Certifications 

The Arizona Secretary of State's office had one full time HA V A posi tion for the period 

of April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2007. Once we determined that a certification was 

required, we added the statement to the bi-weekly timesheet in 2007. While we 

acknowledge that we did not have the semi-annual form filled out for the period in 

question, the job description for that position clearly indicates this was a full time HA V A 

resource. We have recently gone back and received certifications from the employees that 

filled that position in order to remedy the situation. Those certifications are included 

with our response. We feel strongly that the EAC can rest assured that the salaries and 

1700 W. Washington Street, 7th Floor 


Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2888 


Telephone (602) 542-4285 Fax (602) 542-1575 


www,azsos.gov 
employee related expenses spent from the HAV A fund during this period were solely 


incurred for HAV A related work. 


NFR #3 - Property 

The Arizona Secretary of State's office has no disagreement with this finding. We are 


requiring the staff at Pinal County to conduct a full physical inventory of all HAV A 


funded equipment to ensure that the property records reflect the correct information. In 


addition we are requiring that property tags be secured to the proper equipment and are 


cross referenced to the manufacturer's serial numbers. The Arizona Secretary of State's 


office will conduct a follow-up audit with Pinal County to ensure Pinal County is in 


compliance. 


~tp .~'-/~ Arizon:J!::l:e Election Director 
EAC RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT: 

OIG Performance Audit Report on the Administration of 

Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by the 

State ofArizona, for the Period April 28, 2003 Through 

January 31, 2011 

July 15, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

To: 	 Curtis Crider 

Inspector General 

Thomas Wilkey 

Executive Director 

Subject: 	 Draft Performance Audit Report - "Administration of Payments 

Received Under the Help America Vote Act by the State of 

Arizona". 

Thank you for this opportunity to review and respond to the draft audit report for 

Arizona. 

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has reviewed the preliminary audit 

results and recommendations. While we generally concur with the findings, we 

will work with the Arizona Secretary of State to gather additional information 

about funds used for the Kids Voting Arizona program to determine whether 

costs should be allowed or disallowed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

AUDIT METHODOLOGY 

Our audit methodology included: 

•		 Assessing audit risk and significance within the context of the audit objectives. 

•		 Obtaining an understanding of internal control that is significant to the administration of the 

HAVA funds. 

•		 Understanding relevant information systems controls as applicable. 

•		 Identifying sources of evidence and the amount and type of evidence required. 

•		 Determining whether other auditors have conducted, or are conducting, audits of the 

program that could be relevant to the audit objectives. 

To implement our audit methodology, below are some of the audit procedures we performed: 

•		 Interviewed appropriate SOS employees about the organization and operations of the HAVA 

program. 

•		 Reviewed prior single audit reports and other reviews related to the state’s financial 

management systems and the HAVA program for the last four (4) years. 

•		 Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations for the SOS’s management and accounting 

systems as they relate to the administration of HAVA programs. 

•		 Analyzed the inventory lists of equipment purchased with HAVA funds. 

•		 Tested major purchases and supporting documentation, and tested randomly sampled 

payments made with the HAVA funds. 

•		 Verified support for reimbursements to local governments (counties, cities, and 

municipalities). 

•		 Reviewed certain state laws that impacted the election fund. 

•		 Examined appropriations and expenditure reports for state funds used to meet the five 

percent matching requirement for section 251 requirements payments. 

•		 Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information reported 

to the Commission on the financial status reports, Form SF-269 and 425, accounting for 

property, purchasing HAVA related goods and services, and accounting for salaries. 

•		 Verified the establishment and maintenance of an election fund. 

•		 Conducted site visits of selected counties to observe physical security/safeguard of 

equipment purchased with HAVA funds and to test for proper accounting and 

documentation. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


	

Appendix C 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF JANUARY 31, 2011
 


Questioned Additional Funds for 

Description Costs Program 

Kids Voting Arizona $20,000 $0 

Personnel expenditures $147,141 $0 

Totals $167,141 $0 

13
	
 

 

 

OIG’s Mission 

The OIG audit mission is to provide timely, high-quality 

professional products and services that are useful to OIG’s clients. 

OIG seeks to provide value through its work, which is designed to 

enhance the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in EAC 

operations so they work better and cost less in the context of 

today's declining resources. OIG also seeks to detect and prevent 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in these programs and 

operations. Products and services include traditional financial and 

performance audits, contract and grant audits, information systems 

audits, and evaluations. 

Obtaining 

Copies of 

OIG Reports 

Copies of OIG reports can be requested by e-mail. 

(eacoig@eac.gov). 

Mail orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 566-3100 

Fax: (202) 566-0957 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste and Abuse 

Involving the U.S. 

Election Assistance 

Commission or Help 

America Vote Act 

Funds 

By Mail: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

 1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

 Washington, DC 20005 

E-mail: eacoig@eac.gov 

OIG Hotline: 866-552-0004 (toll free) 

FAX: 202-566-0957