U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

January 23, 2008 

Memorandum 

To: Thomas Wilkey 

 Executive Director 

From: Curtis W. Crider 

 Inspector General 

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

America Vote Act by the State of Wyoming Secretary of State Elections Division 

(Assignment Number E-HP-WY-03-07) 

 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 State of Wyoming Secretary of State Elections Division 

(State Elections Division). 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. 

 On August 24, 2007, the Office of Inspector General issued the Final Audit Report to the 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Executive Director and requested for a written 

response to the recommendations included in this report by October 24, 2007. On November 19, 

2007, Clifton Gunderson received additional written comments dated September 21, 2007 from 

the Wyoming Deputy Secretary of State. In reviewing the comments received, Clifton 

Gunderson revised its Executive Summary to reflect the deputy secretary’s comment. Attached 

to the Revised Final Report is a letter from Clifton Gunderson explaining the revisions made to 

the Final Report issued on August 24, 2007. 

 Please provide us with your written response to the recommendations included in the 

Revised Final Report by March 14, 2008. Your response should contain information on actions 

taken or planned, including target dates and titles of EAC officials responsible for implementing 

the recommendations. 

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

 
11710 Beltsville Drive, Suite 300

Calverton, Maryland 20705

tel: 301-931-2050 

fax: 301-931-1710 

www.cliftoncpa.com Offices in 15 states and Washington, DC h

January 4, 2008 

A1

Mr. Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1225 New York Avenue, NW – Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 2005 

SUBJECT: Final Report: Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote 

Act by the Wyoming Secretary of State Elections Division 

Dear Mr. Wilkey: 

Attached is a revised final report for the State of Wyoming. 

After our final report, Report No. E-HP-WY-03-07 dated August 2007, was released by the U.S. 

Election Assistance Commission Office of Inspector General, we received, on November 19, 2007, 

additional written comments dated September 21, 2007 from the Wyoming Deputy Secretary of 

State through your office. 

We evaluated the additional written comments and agreed to make certain changes to the final 

report referred to above to reflect the deputy secretary’s comment that “at the time of purchase, 

there was no intent by the State to purchase anything using funds for non-HAVA use.” 

Below shows the only modifications made to the report’s Executive Summary, page 1. 

Revised Final Report: 

Except for the use of certain equipment purchased with HAVA funds which were used, for nonHAVA related work, as discussed below, our audit concluded that SED generally accounted for and 

expended HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements mentioned above. This includes 

compliance with section 251 requirements for an election fund. The exception noted above needing 

SED’s management attention is as follows: 

• Certain computer equipment purchased with HAVA funds at the state offices and in the 

counties for voter registration were used for non-HAVA related activities. The state did not 

have procedures in place to allocate the costs of the equipments between the HAVA and the 

non-HAVA related activities. 
11710 Beltsville Drive, Suite 300

Calverton, Maryland 20705

tel: 301-931-2050 

fax: 301-931-1710 

www.cliftoncpa.com Offices in 15 states and Washington, DC h

Mr. Thomas Wilkey, Executive Director 

USEAC 

January 4, 2008 

Page 2 of 2 

 

Original Final Report:

Except for the use of equipment purchased with HAVA funds for non-HAVA related work, which 

is discussed below, our audit concluded that SED generally accounted for and expended HAVA 

funds in accordance with the requirements mentioned above. This includes compliance with section 

251 requirements for an election fund. The exception noted above needing SED’s management 

attention is as follows: 

• The state purchased computer equipment with HAVA funds for use at the state offices and 

in the counties for voter registration which was also used for non-HAVA related activities. 

However, the state did not put procedures in place to allocate the costs of the equipment 

between the HAVA and the non-HAVA related activities. 

Please do not hesitate to call me or email me at Mia.Leswing@Cliftoncpa.com if you have questions. 

Sincerely, 

î 

CLIFTON GUNDERSON LLP 

Mia Leswing, CPA CISA CGFM 

Partner 

 

Attachment: Revised Final Report: Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act 

by the Wyoming Secretary of State Elections Division 
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

REVISED FINAL REPORT: 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP 

AMERICA VOTE ACT BY THE 

WYOMING SECRETARY OF STATE 

ELECTIONS DIVISION 

MAY 1,2003 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28,2007

Report No. 

E-HP-WY-03-07 

AUGUST 2007
A1

REVISED FINAL REPORT 

PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP 

AMERICA VOTE ACT BY THE WYOMING 

SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTIONS 

DIVISION 

May 1, 2003 Through February 28, 2007 

UNITED STATES ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 

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

BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................................2 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................2 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................3 

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

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Secretary of State Elections Division’s Additional 

Response to Audit Results.............................................................................................6 

Attachment 1.................................................................................................................11

Attachment 2 ................................................................................................................13

Attachment 3 ................................................................................................................15

Attachment 4 ................................................................................................................31 

Appendix B: Secretary of State Election Division’s Initial 

Response to Audit Results...........................................................................................38

Appendix C: Audit Methodology..............................................................................................................43 

Appendix D: Monetary Impact as of February 28, 2007 ....................................................................45 
A1

Offices in 17 states and Washington, DC 1 h

U.S. Elections Assistance Commission 

Performance Audit of the Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America 

Vote Act by the Wyoming Secretary of State Elections Division 

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 Wyoming 

Secretary of State Elections Division (SED) for the period May 1, 2003 through February 28, 2007 

to determine whether the SED 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 property purchased with HAVA payments and 

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

matching contribution, and for maintenance of a base level of state outlays. 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 use of certain equipment purchased with HAVA funds which were used for nonHAVA related work as discussed below, our audit concluded that SED generally accounted for and 

expended HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements mentioned above. This includes 

compliance with section 251 requirements for an election fund. The exception noted above needing 

SED’s management attention is as follows: 

• Certain computer equipment purchased with HAVA funds at the state offices and in the 

counties for voter registration were used for non-HAVA related activities. The state did not 

have procedures in place to allocate the costs of the equipment between the HAVA and the 

non-HAVA related activities. 
2 

We have included in this report the SED’s formal response to our draft report dated July 12, 2007 

and the related response to our draft finding and recommendation dated May 30, 2007. The SED 

agreed that the equipment was used for non-HAVA related activities, but is of the opinion that the 

state and counties should not have to fund any of the computer equipment costs. 

BACKGROUND

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the U.S. Election Assistance 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)(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)). 

• 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 )(1). 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the State of Wyoming: 

1. Used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of the Help America Vote Act 

(HAVA) in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; 

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

program income; 
3 

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

contribution, and for maintenance of a base level of state outlays. 

In addition, to account 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: 

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. Submit detailed annual financial reports on the use of Title I and Title II payments.1

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We audited the HAVA funds received and disbursed by the SED from May 1, 2003 through 

February 28, 2007. 

Funds received and disbursed from May 1, 2003 (program initiation date) to February 28, 2007 (47-

month period) are shown below: 

FUNDS RECEIVED 

TYPE OF 

PAYMENT

EAC 

PAYMENT

STATE 

MATCH 

INTEREST

EARNED 

TOTAL 

AVAILABLE

FUNDS 

DISBURSED

DATA 

AS OF

 

101 $ 5,000,000 $0 $748,044 $5,748,044 $ 886,605 2/28/2007

102 0 0 0 0 0 2/28/2007

251 11,596,803 610,358 840,231 13,047,392 7,081,182 2/28/2007

$16,596,803 $610,358 $1,588,275 $18,795,436 $7,967,787

Note: Section 251 funds disbursed excluded the disbursements on a cancelled contract totaling 

$3,700,000 and airline travel of $398, which were refunded to the fund. See more 

explanation in Appendix A. 

 

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

251 funds. For Sections 101 and 102, reports are due on February 28 for the activities of the 

previous calendar year. For Section 251, reports are due by March 31 for the activities of the 

previous fiscal year ending on September 30. 
4 

Our audit methodology is set forth in Appendix B. 

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 equipment cost allocation, our audit concluded that SED generally accounted for and 

expended HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements mentioned above. This includes 

compliance with section 251 requirements for an election fund and for maintenance of a base level 

of state outlays. The exception needing SED’s management attention is described below: 

I. Equipment Cost Allocation 

The state purchased two (2) desktop computers and one (1) server unit for each county, and other 

equipment for election headquarters to be used for voter registration at an invoice price of $199,475,

but at a net cost of $173,322. Title to the computers rests with the state; however, state officials 

have given permission to the staff at both the state and county offices to use the equipment for daily

non-HAVA activities. The state did not put procedures in place to allocate the costs of the 

equipment between the HAVA and the Non-HAVA related activities, and to reimburse the election 

fund for the allocated non-HAVA portion of the costs of the equipment. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and 

Non-Profit Organizations, Part 7.B.1.b.2 states that a cost is allowable for Federal reimbursement only 

to the extent of benefits received by Federal Awards and its conformance with the general policies 

and principles stated in OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal

Governments, Attachment A., which states that a cost is allocable to a particular cost objective if the 

goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to such cost objective in accordance with 

relative benefits received. OMB Circular A-87 further states in 3.b. that all subawards are subject to 

those Federal cost principles applicable to the particular organization concerned. 

The EAC has also issued guidelines, in response to a question asked about the DeMinimus Uses of 

Equipment, that a state can allocate only that portion of the equipment purchase cost that will go to 

benefit the state’s HAVA program. Alternatively, the expenses may qualify as an indirect cost in 

which case the state may submit an indirect cost rate proposal in which it identifies and supplies 

information regarding direct and indirect costs of operation. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that the EAC require the SED to: 

1. Implement a policy and procedure to ensure that the cost of equipment purchased with 

HAVA funds is properly allocated between HAVA and non-HAVA related usages. 
5 

2. Determine the amount of reimbursement due to the election fund for non-HAVA usage of 

the applicable equipment since date of acquisition.

SED’s Response: 

The SED responded by identifying the sequence of events relating to the purchase of the computer 

equipment from a vendor for the voter registration project, and the resulting problems associated 

with the contract with the vendor. The vendor eventually refunded most of the money paid on the 

contract except for $173,322 for the equipment. The state officials acknowledged that some of this 

equipment is being used for non-HAVA related activities. However, they believe that the use of the 

equipment for activities not related to HAVA is warranted, based on a number of factors cited in 

their response at Appendix A. 

The SED’s response in Appendix A included various attachments regarding the allocation of the 

percentage of usage assigned to the equipment and other explanatory information. This information 

was not available to us at the time of the audit but was only provided in SED’s response to our draft 

report. Accordingly, we were not able to examine the basis of the allocation to determine its 

reasonableness or accuracy. 

Auditor’s Response: 

Federal regulations and EAC rulings provide definitive guidance when equipment purchased with 

federal funds for a specific purpose is also used for activities not related to the purpose. The 

guidance requires that the cost be allocated on a usage basis. It does not provide any exceptions. 

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

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

of State Elections Division and the United States Election Assistance Commission. We considered 

any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

CG performed its work between January 5, 2007 and J

A1

une 1, 2007. 

Calverton, Maryland 





































43 

Appendix C 

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: 

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

program. 

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

systems and the HAVA program for the last 2 years. 

• Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations for the SED’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. 

• 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 maintain the level of 

expenses for elections at least equal to the amount expended in fiscal year 2000 and to meet the 

five percent matching requirement for section 251 requirements payments. 

• Reviewed/examined information regarding source/supporting documents kept for maintenance 

of effort and matching contributions. 
44 

• Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information reported to 

the Commission on the Financial Status Reports, Form SF 269, accounting for property, 

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

• Verified the establishment and maintenance of an election fund. 

• Verified whether the state has sustained the state’s level of expenditures for Elections. 
45 

Appendix D 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

Description 

Questioned 

Costs 

 

Non-HAVA use of equipment $173,322 

 

Totals $173,322 
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 

1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

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 

By Mail: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

 Office of Inspector General 

 1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

 Washington, DC 20005

Commission or Help 

America Vote Act 

Funds

E-mail: eacoig@eac.gov

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

FAX: 202-566-0957