U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FINAL REPORT: 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Program 

Award number: 08-EDC-800166 

State of Minnesota 

MAY 27, 2008 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010 

Report No. 

E-GR-MN-04-12 

September 2013 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300
 

Washington, DC 20005
 

Memorandum 

September 12, 2013 

To:	 Alice Miller 

Acting Executive Director 

From:	 Curtis W. Crider 

Inspector General 

Subject: Final Performance Audit Report – 2008 Election Data Collection Grant 

Program Award Number: 08-EDC-800166, State of Minnesota 

(Assignment Number E-GR-MN-04-12) 

We contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of McBride, Lock 

& Associates to conduct the subject audit. The objectives of the audit were to identify costs 

claimed in the Grant’s Financial Status Reports that were not allocable, allowable, reasonable, 

and in conformity with United States Election Assistance Commission’s award terms and 

conditions and applicable Federal grant requirements. 

In its audit, McBride, Lock & Associates concluded that the Minnesota Secretary of 

State (SOS) generally accounted for and expended the Election Data Collection grant funds in 

accordance with applicable requirements for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 

2010. However the following exceptions were identified; 

•	 The SOS’s inventory listings did not conform to the requirements of 41 C.F.R. 105­

71.132 (d)(1), (the Common Rule). Various categories of required information were 

missing from the listings, including location and use and condition of property. 

•	 The SOS charged $31,415 in personnel expenses to the Grant which were not 

supported by adequate documentation. 

•	 The SOS lacks complete, documented departmental internal control policies. 

In its August 26, 2013 response to the draft report (Attachment A-1), the SOS provided 

comments to the findings and corrective actions, as applicable, to address the recommendations. 

The SOS did not agree with the finding related to unsupported payroll costs or the related 

questioned costs of $31,145. 

In the report McBride, Lock & Associates summarized the SOS’s response to the 

recommendations, as well as their comments on the responses after the recommendations. Also 

included in the report is the EAC response to the draft report (Appendix A-2), dated August 12, 

2013, which indicated that the EAC would work with the SOS to ensure corrective action. 
 

 

 

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 November 13, 2013. 

Your response should include information on actions taken or planned, targeted 

completion dates, and titles of officials responsible for implementation. 

To fulfill our responsibilities under Government Auditing Standards, the Office of 

Inspector General: 

• Reviewed McBride, Lock & Associates’ approach and planning of the audit; 

• Evaluated the qualifications and independence of the auditors; 

• Monitored the progress of the audit at key points; 

•	 Reviewed the audit report, prepared by McBride, Lock & Associates to ensure 

compliance with Government Auditing Standards; and 

• Coordinated issuance of the audit report. 

McBride, Lock & Associates is responsible for the attached auditor’s report and 

the conclusions expressed in the report. We do not express any opinion on the 

conclusions presented in McBride, Lock & Associates audit report. 

The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to 

Congress semiannually on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement our 

recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented. 

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

Attachment 

cc: Director of Grants and Payments 

 


 


 


 


 


 

Performance Audit Report 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Program
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800166
 

State of Minnesota
 

May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010
 

United States
 

Election Assistance Commission
 

McBRIDE, LOCK & ASSOCIATES 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 

KANSAS CITY 
 

 

 


 


 


 


 

Performance Audit Report
 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Program
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800166
 

State of Minnesota
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 

BACKGROUND 2 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 3 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 4 

AUDIT RESULTS 4 

APPENDICES: 

Appendix A-1: Response of the Minnesota Secretary of State to the Draft Report 

Appendix A-2: Response of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

to the Draft Report 

Appendix B: Audit Methodology 

Appendix C: Schedule of Awards as of June 30, 2010 

Appendix D: Monetary Impact as of June 30, 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 

	 


 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
 

Performance Audit Report
 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Programs
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800166
 

State of Minnesota
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

McBride, Lock & Associates was engaged by the United States Election Assistance Commission 

(EAC) Office of the Inspector General to conduct a performance audit of award 08-EDC800166, Election Data Collection Grant (Grant), to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office 

(Office) from inception on May 27, 2008 through the award conclusion date of June 30, 2010 to 

determine whether the Office was in compliance with EAC’s and Federal regulations concerning 

award administration and management. 

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. 

Based on the audit procedures performed, except for the matters discussed below, we concluded 

that the Office generally accounted for and expended the Grant funds in accordance with the 

requirements mentioned above for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010. The 

exceptions are as follows: 

1.	 The Office’s inventory listings did not conform to the requirements of 41 C.F.R. 105­

71.132 (d)(1), (the Common Rule). Various categories of required information were 

missing from the listings, including location and use and condition of property. 

2.	 The Office charged $31,415 in personnel expenses to the Grant which were not supported 

by adequate documentation. 

3.	 The Office lacks complete, documented departmental internal control policies. 

We have included in this report as Appendix A-1, the Secretary of State’s written response to the 

draft report. Such response has not been subjected to the audit procedures and, accordingly, we 

do not provide any form of assurance on the appropriateness of the response or the effectiveness 

of the corrective actions described therein. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 


 


 

BACKGROUND 

In December 2007 Congress authorized the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act 

(Public Law 110-161, Title V), which directed the EAC to award grants of $2 million to each of 

five eligible states to improve the collection of precinct level data relating to the November 2008 

Federal elections. The act provided for the creation of the Election Data Collection Grant 

Program, the purpose of which was to: 

•	 Develop and document a series of administrative and procedural best practices in election 

data collection that can be replicated by other States; 

•	 Improve data collection processes; 

•	 Enhance the capacity of States and their jurisdictions to collect accurate and complete 

election data; and 

•	 Document and describe particular administrative and management data collection
 

practices, as well as particular data collection policies and procedures.
 

The States were to use the Grant funds to implement programs to improve the collection of data 

relative to the November 2008 Federal general election and to improve the reporting of election 

data at the precinct level. The Grants were awarded in May 2008 and were for a period of 13 

months. 

The States were to provide their report on the data collected from the November 2008 election to 

the EAC by March 2009. In turn, the EAC was required to submit, by June 30, 2009, a report to 

Congress on the impact of the Election Data Collection Grant Program on States’ abilities to 

effectively collect Federal Election data. The EAC granted the Minnesota Secretary of State a 

no-cost extension on the grant beyond June 30, 2009. 

The Minnesota Secretary of State substantially completed the grant award requirements and 

issued their final report to EAC by June 30, 2009 as required. This report issued on June 1, 2009 

indicated to the EAC that they had $580,593 in unused grant funds. The Office requested a one 

year no-cost extension so they could complete the grant project with the remaining 

funds. Additionally, the Office requested a budget modification to shift tasks from the Office 

personnel to contractual personnel. EAC granted them a no-cost extension through June 30, 

2010. A summary of grant activity is as follows: 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Data Collection Grant Activity 

(a) (b) (c) (d) 

Proposed As of As of As of (d) - (c) = (e) 

Category Amount June 1, 2009 June 30, 2009 Dec. 31, 2009 Difference Notes 

Personnel $ 192,308 $ 164,632 $ 192,243 $ 192,243 $ - 1 

Fringes 57,692 46,593 54,713 54,713 - 1 

Equipment 232,578 195,058 195,058 232,574 37,516 

Contractual 1,517,422 1,023,055 1,471,440 1,517,389 45,949 1 

Totals $ 2,000,000 $ 1,429,338 $ 1,913,454 $ 1,996,919 $ 83,465 

Note 1: The Office requested a budget modification on May 8, 2009 to reduce the total 

Personnel and Fringes to $250,000 and increase the Contractual to $1,517,422. 

The Office spent $83,465 subsequent to June 30, 2009. The expenditures were comprised of 

equipment purchased and contractual work. The equipment purchases were requisitioned prior to 

June 30, 2009. The Office did amend a contract with the primary consultant in June 2009 that 

provided additional time to finish the work. The Office did add two additional duties to the 

contractor as follows: 

1. Participate in testing and defect resolution processes as required. 

2. Creation and updates of process, procedural and user documentation. 

The duties above were transferred to the contractor as the Office could not provide those with the 

current staffing levels of the Office. Although, additional duties were added to the service 

contract, those duties did not deviate from the original scope of the grant award. 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of our performance audit were to identify costs claimed in the Grant’s Financial 

Status Reports that are not allocable, allowable, reasonable, and in conformity with EAC award 

terms and conditions and applicable Federal grant requirements. The Office is required to follow 

the requirements of the Grant program’s legislation and program regulations, Grant award terms 

and conditions, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 (2 CFR 225), Cost 

Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, and OMB Circular A-102, Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments. 

3
 
 

 

 

 


 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We audited the Grant funds received and disbursed by the Office from May 27, 2008 through 

June 30, 2010 as show 

Award amount 

Award funds received 

Program income 

Total available 

n in the following table: 

$ 2,000,000 

$ 1,996,919 

-

$ 1,996,919 

Our audit methodology 

Program expenditures 

is set forth in Appendix B. 

$ 1,996,919 

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. 

Based on the audit procedures performed, except for the matters discussed below, we concluded 

that the Office accounted for and expended the Grant funds in accordance with the requirements 

mentioned above for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010. The exceptions to 

applicable compliance requirements are described below. 

Finding No. 1 – Inadequate Equipment Management 

The Minnesota Secretary of State Office’s (Office) equipment management is inadequate in 

regards to maintaining adequate property records. 

The Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State 

and Local Governments 41 CFR § 105-71.132 (d)(1) (the “Common Rule”) section states that, 

“Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number 

or other identification number, the source of property, who holds the title, the acquisition date, 

and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the property, the 

location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the data 

of disposal and sale price of the property.” 

The database used as the Office’s inventory system only includes a description of the property, a 

serial number, source of property, who holds the title, acquisition date, cost of the property and 

percentage of Federal participation and does not include fields for location, or use and condition 

of inventory items. The Office has not disposed of any grant funded assets. Accordingly, no 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

disposition data was disclosed in the inventory listing. The Office conducts a physical inventory 

on an annual basis where the Network Administrator creates a spreadsheet documenting all 

equipment maintained in each office and then compares his spreadsheet with the inventory 

system and any discrepancies are reconciled with the Fiscal Services Supervisor. The Office is 

not able to adequately track any movement of equipment purchased with grant funds without 

identifying the location in the inventory system and verifying that location during the physical 

inventory. Additionally, equipment may be inoperable and need to be replaced or retired. 

The audit sampled five invoices of equipment purchases which accounted for approximately 

68% of the $232,574 charged to the grant. The sampled items were able to be physically 

observed and were in working condition. 

Adequate property records aid in the safeguarding of equipment purchased with federal funds 

and in the performance of the physical inventory. The Office’s lack of adequate records as 

required by the Common Rule may allow assets to become inoperable or to go missing without 

timely detection. 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to update its inventory system to include fields 

detailing location, the use and condition of inventory items and provide a copy to EAC in order 

to close out this finding. We further recommend the Office develop written procedures that 

specify the information to be included in the Office’s property records for Federally-financed 

capital assets. 

Secretary of State Response: 

The Office will add fields to the existing inventory system to identify the location and use 

and condition of equipment purchased. Additionally, the Office has adopted policy with 

respect to equipment reporting. 

Auditor’s Response: 

The corrective action plan is responsive to the concerns and will resolve the finding. 

Finding No. 2 – Unsupported Payroll Costs Charged to the Grant 

The Office did not accurately charge payroll costs to the grant based on percentage of effort for 

each of the State employees. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and 

Indian Tribal Governments, Attachment B.8.h.(3), states that “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 semi-annually 

and will be signed by the employee or supervisory official having firsthand knowledge of the 

work performed by the employee.” 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Attachment B.8.h.(4), states that “Where employees work on multiple activities or cost 

objectives, a distribution of their salaries or wages will be supported by personnel activity reports 

or equivalent documentation which meets the standards in subsection (5)... Such documentary 

support will be required where employees work on... (b) A Federal award and a non Federal 

award” 

Attachment B.8.h.(5), states that “Personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation must 

meet the following standards: (a) They must reflect an after the fact distribution of the actual 

activity of each employee, (b) They must account for the total activity for which each employee 

is compensated, (c) They must be prepared at least monthly and must coincide with one or more 

pay periods, and (d) They must be signed by the employee.” 

The Office requires a timesheet (Time Tracker) to be prepared by employees who work on 

multiple activities or cost objectives in order to allocate payroll charges to the appropriate funds. 

A review of the payroll allocations to the grant disclosed that actual hours were charged to EAC 

as opposed to the relative percentage of effort expended on grant activities. For example, it was 

noted that the Chief Information Officer worked a total of 103.75 hours during a two week 

period. Of the 103.75 hours worked, only 23 (22.17%) were related to the Grant. However, the 

employee is paid wages based on an 80 hour bi-weekly pay period and the grant was charged 23 

direct hours which is 28.75% (23/80) of total salary. This resulted in an over-allocation of $412 

for this employee for that payroll period. 

Based on analysis provided by the Office for all employees charged to the grant, a total of $6,547 

was over-allocated to the grant. Additionally, $21,123 was charged for one full-time staff person 

that worked solely on this grant and the Office was not able to provide labor certifications to 

support the payroll charges. Therefore, $27,670 of the $192,242 total salary charged was either 

over allocated or unsupported and therefore considered questioned costs. The Office also 

charged $54,713 in fringe benefits to the grant and based on the same analysis an estimated 

$3,475 of fringe benefits are considered questioned costs. In total $31,145 of payroll costs are 

identified as questioned costs. The Office did provide additional analysis to support that there 

were hours worked on the grant that were not charged due to the limited available grant funds. 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that the EAC address and resolve the following recommendation that the 

Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office: 

(a) Refund $31,145 of questioned costs arising from unsupported or over-allocated payroll 

costs. 

(b) The Office should document appropriate policies and procedures in written manuals and 

also providing training to personnel involved in the payroll process as necessary to ensure 

that the expenditure of future Federal award funds is adequately allocated and supported. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 


 

Secretary of State Response: 

You cite Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, particularly Attachments 

B.8.h. (3), (4) and (5). 

1.	 You indicate that Attachment (3) requires that there be a certification semi-annually 

that the employee worked full-time on a single federal award or cost objective. It is 

true that OSS has been unable to locate any such certification in the records of the 

Office. The individual who was the supervisor of the project left the office over two 

years ago. We have, however, located the job description of the employee in question 

which clearly delineates the job responsibilities of the position as tasks which were 

entirely under the EAC EDC Project. That document is attached. Again, the employee 

in question has been gone from employment for, in her case, nearly three years. 

2.	 You indicate that Attachments (4) and (5) require a certain allocation of salary and 

fringe expenses based on reports by the personnel in question. You indicated that in 

your opinion, the number of hours charged to the Federal grant should not have been 

the number of actual hours, but only a proportion of the actual hours worked for the 

Federal grant as compared to the total hours worked for both the Federal grant and on 

non-Federal work. 

It is not clear to OSS what is the basis for this portion of the finding, because there is 

nowhere in the policies cited in this finding, a statement to this effect. The policies 

indicate that there must be records of the time worked on various matters, but there is 

no indication in the finding that the employees working on both the Federal and nonFederal work did not keep the necessary records. We would appreciate a more 

complete description of the basis in rule for not allowing the full amount of the time 

worked for a Federal grant to be charged to a Federal grant. 

3.	 In your finding you indicate “The Office did provide additional analysis to support 

that there are hours worked on the grant that were not charged due to the limited 

available grant funds.” 

OSS completed the EAC EDC Project in June, July, August and September 2009 by 

spending $79,561.42 of State money, over and above the amounts charged to the 

Federal grant. This sum would have been charged to the Federal grant if sufficient 

Federal funds had been available. If EAC determines that $31,145 should not have 

been spent from Federal grant funds based upon this finding, OSS asks EAC to allow 

OSS to allocate the above referenced $79,561.42 to the grant, thus resulting in a setoff where no funds would be exchanged. 

The spreadsheet which we had previously provided is again attached to this response. 

It shows in the “Worked Not Billed” tab the total amounts broken down by pay 

period and employee. They are quite significant. If it had been clear that there would 

have been disallowances of claims against the grant, we certainly would have claimed 

a portion of these amounts from the Federal grant. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Auditor’s Response: 

The Office did provide a job description that indicates that the employee in question was 

hired specifically for the Election Data Collection Grant. However, without a semi-annual 

labor certification or periodic timesheets signed by the employee or supervisory official 

having firsthand knowledge of the work performed by the employee it cannot be assured that 

100% of the time worked was dedicated to the Election Data Collection Grant. 

Attachment B.8.h.(4), states that distribution of employees salaries or wages will be 

supported by personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation. This would indicate that 

payroll charges should be allocated to Federal grants based on the percentage of effort 

worked by each employee. 

The Office did provide analysis and documentation to support that hours were incurred that 

were not charged to the grant as a result of limited available grant funds. 

Finding No. 3 – Documentation of Policies and Procedures 

Key internal control policies affecting financial management activities including purchasing, 

payment, Federal financial reporting, property management process and Federal grant oversight 

and administration, have not been addressed in a departmental policy and procedure document. 

The Office relies on written guidelines set forth in State manuals, statutes and other publications 

and written job descriptions that provide tasks and responsibilities. Accordingly, documented 

internal control policies at the departmental level are minimal. 

Federal regulations, specifically 41 CFR 105-71.120(b)(3) - Post-Award Requirements/Financial 

Administration, Standards for Financial Management Systems, Internal Control, require that: 

(a) A State must expand and account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and 

procedures for expending and accounting for its own funds, and 

(b) Effective control and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, 

real and personal property, and other assets. 

Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) Statewide Operating Policy 0102-01 states, “The 

head of each executive branch state agency (excluding the Minnesota State Colleges and 

University system) must design, implement, and maintain an effective system of internal 

controls. This system must: (3) Require documentation of internal control procedures over 

financial management activities, provide for analysis of risks, and provide for periodic evaluation 

of control procedures to satisfy the MMB Commissioner that these procedures are adequately 

designed, properly implemented, and functioning effectively. ” 

Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Administration revised statewide policy, Property 

Management Reporting and Accountability, states that each agency is required to establish 

departmental policies to account for property acquired for use in a work location and off-site. 

8
 
 

 

 


 

A key aspect of maintaining an effective system of internal controls is the documentation of 

related policies and procedures to ensure these criteria are current, approved, communicated, 

incorporated into training materials, and updated when appropriate. 

The lack of documented departmental internal control policies and procedures may result in lack 

of awareness and compliance of regulations, and could allow noncompliance with grant terms 

and conditions to occur and not be detected. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to complete and document internal control 

procedures and other appropriate policies in written manuals and also provide training to 

personnel involved in the administration of future Federal awards. Specifically, these policies 

and procedures should address financial management activities including purchasing, payment, 

Federal financial reporting, property management process and Federal grant oversight and 

administration. Additionally, these procedures should be reviewed and updated on a regular 

basis. 

Secretary of State Response: 

The Office has adopted seven new policies to address financial management activities, 

including purchasing, payment, Federal financial reporting, property management and 

Federal grant oversight and administration. 

Auditor’s Response: 

The Office has adopted departmental specific policies that should be considered by EAC in 

resolving the finding. 

We provided a draft of our report to the appropriate individuals of the Office of the Secretary of 

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

The Office responded on August 26, 2013 and generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations. The EAC responded on August 12, 2013 and stated they would work with the 

Office to resolve the issues and ensure appropriate corrective action. The Office’s complete 

response is included as Appendix A-1 and EAC’s complete response as Appendix A-2. 

McBride, Lock & Associates performed the related audit procedures between January 28, 2013 

and May 28, 2013. 

(Original Signed by McBride, Lock & Associates) 

McBride, Lock & Associates 

May 28, 2013 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Office of Minnesota Secretary of State
 

Mark Ritchie
 

August 26, 2013 

Curtis Crider 

Inspector General 

Election Assistance Commission 

1201 New York Avenue NW, Suite 300 

Washington DC 20005 

Dear Inspector General Crider, 

This is the Final Response of the Office of the Secretary of State of Minnesota (OSS) to the Audit 

conducted by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) through its auditors, McBride, Lock & 

Associates. 

OSS appreciates the opportunity to make this response as well as the opportunity to discuss the findings 

during the exit conference call. 

OSS understands the three findings and has taken the following actions to resolve them: 

With respect to Finding No. 1 with respect to Equipment Management, OSS proposes to add 

fields regarding the location, use and condition of inventory items to an existing data system. An 

example of the template is attached, as is a policy that has been adopted by OSS with respect to 

equipment reporting. 

With respect to Finding No. 2 with respect to payroll costs, OSS has no further response but will 

work with the EAC Grants Administrator to resolve any outstanding charges to this grant. 

Finally, with respect to Finding No. 3 with respect to OSS-specific policies, OSS has adopted 

seven policies responsive to the finding; those policies are attached to this letter. 

OSS wishes to express its thanks for the cooperation of EAC and the auditors and we look forward to 

working with the EAC in the future. 

Best regards, 

Bert Black 

Legal Advisor 

Office of the Secretary of State of Minnesota 

180 State Office Building | 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. | Saint Paul, MN 55155-1299
 

Phone: 651-201-1324 or 1-877-600-8683 | Fax: 651-215-0682 | MN Relay Service: 711
 

E-mail: secretary.state.@state.mn.us | Web site: www.sos.state.mn.us
 
EAC RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT: 

OIG Performance Audit Report - Election Data Collection 

Grant Program Award Number : OB-EDC-B00166, State of 

Minnesota · 

August 12, 2013 


MEMORANDUM 


To: Curtis Crider 

Inspector General /). j} 

From: Alice P. Miller, Chief 9' i ~~~ & 

Acting Executive Director 

Subject: 	 Draft Performance Audit Report - Election Data Collection Grant 

Program Award Number: OB-EDC-B00166, State of Minnesota 

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

the Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State (OSS). 

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) will work with the OSS to ensure 

appropriate corrective action. 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

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 Grant funds and of 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 Office employees about the organization and operations of the 

Grant program. 

•	 Reviewed prior single audit report and other reviews related to the State’s financial 

management systems and the Grant program for the period under review. 

•	 Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations for the Office management and 

accounting systems as they relate to the administration of the Grant program. 

•	 Analyzed the inventory lists of equipment purchase with Grant funds 

•	 Tested major purchases, in the form of contractual services, and the supporting 

documentation. 

•	 Tested randomly sampled payments made with Grant funds. 

•	 Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information 

reported to the Commission on the financial status reports and progress reports, Form 

SF-269 and SF-PPR, accounting for property, purchasing Grant related goods and 

services, and accounting for salaries. 

12
 
 


 

Appendix C 

SCHEDULE OF AWARDS AS OF JUNE 30, 2010 

Budget Actual 

Personnel Costs $ 192,308 $ 192,243 

Fringe Benefits 57,692 54,713 

Total Project Staffing Costs $ 250,000 $ 246,956 

Contractual Costs $ 1,517,422 $ 1,517,389 

Equipment $ 232,578 $ 232,574 

Total Costs $ 2,000,000 $ 1,996,919 

13
 
 


 

Appendix D 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF JUNE 30, 2010 

Additional 

Questioned Funds for 

Description Costs Program 

Unsupported Payroll Costs $ 31,145 $ ­

Total $ 31,145 $ ­

14
 
 

 

 

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