U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

FINAL REPORT:

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP AMERICA 

VOTE ACT BY THE MASSACHUSETTS 

SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH

MAY 2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

Report No. 

E-HP-MA-06-12 

November 2013
Memorandum

November 21, 2013

To: Alice Miller

Acting Executive Director

From: Curtis W. Crider 

Inspector General

Subject: Final Performance Audit Report – Administration of Payments Received 

Under the Help America Vote Act by the Massachusetts Secretary of the 

Commonwealth (Assignment Number E-HP-MA-06-12)

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

& Associates to audit the administration of payments received under the Help America Vote 

Act (HAVA) by the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Office (Office).

 

In its audit, McBride, Lock & Associates concluded that the Office generally accounted 

for and expended the HAVA funds in accordance with applicable requirements for the period 

from May 2003 through September 30, 2012. However the following exceptions were identified:

• The Office submitted financial reports that could not be supported by underlying 

accounting records.

• The Office did not timely credit interest earnings to the Elections Fund.

• The Office property records were not adequate per 41 CFR 105-71.132.

• The Office did not deposit into the election fund the required state match for all Section 

251 requirements payments. 

• The Office expended HAVA funds for purposes that are not allowable under the award’s 

terms and conditions or HAVA regulations.

In its August 29, 2013 response to the draft report (Attachment A-1), the Office provided 

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

The Office did not agree with the finding relating to the questioned costs of $ 195,873 for the 

creation and distribution of Public Service Announcements and for the printing of mail-in voter 

registration cards.

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

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

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

1335 East West Highway - Suite 4300

Silver Spring, MD 20910
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 findings and 

recommendation included in this report by January 21, 2014. 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 (301) 734-3104.

Attachment

cc: Director of Grants and Payments
Performance Audit Report

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth

Prepared for

The United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) 

Office of Inspector General

By

McBride, Lock & Associates

July 2013

McBRIDE, LOCK & ASSOCIATES

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

KANSAS CITY
Performance Audit Report

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

BACKGROUND 2

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 4

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 5

AUDIT RESULTS 5

APPENDICES:

Appendix A-1: Response of the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth

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: Monetary Impact as of September 30, 2012
1

U.S. Election Assistance Commission

Performance Audit Report

Administration of Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by 

the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth

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 the Secretary of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Office (Office) from inception on May 2, 2003 through 

September 30, 2012 to determine whether the Office used payments authorized by Sections 101, 

102, and 251 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) in accordance with HAVA and 

applicable requirements; accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA

payments and for program income; maintained state expenditures at a level not less than the level 

maintained in the fiscal year ending prior to November 2000; and met HAVA requirements for 

Section 251 funds for an election fund and for a matching contribution.

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 Government, 41 CFR 105-71, (originally Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-102, also known as the “Common Rule”). 

• Expend payments in accordance with cost principles set forth in Cost Principles for State 

and Local Governments, 2 CFR 225, (originally Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-87) for establishing the allowability or unallowability of certain items of cost 

for federal participation.

• Follow the requirements of the Federal Cash Management and Improvement Act. 

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

• Comply with the provisions of Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit

Organizations (Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133).

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 
2

requirements mentioned above for the period from May 2, 2003 through September 30, 2012. 

The exceptions are as follows:

1. The Office submitted financial reports that could not be supported by underlying 

accounting records.

2. The Office did not timely credit interest earnings to the Elections Fund.

3. The Office property records are not adequate per 41 CFR 105-71.132.

4. The Office did not deposit into the election fund the required state match for all Section 

251 requirements payments.

5. The Office expended HAVA funds for purposes that are not allowable under the award’s 

terms and conditions or HAVA regulations.

We have included in this report as Appendix A, the Secretary of the Commonwealth’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.

BACKGROUND

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

(Commission) to assist States and insular areas (hereinafter referred to as States) with improving 

the administration of federal elections and to provide funds to States to help implement these 

improvements. The Commission administers payments to States authorized by HAVA under 

Titles I and II, as follows: 

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

requirements for uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration 

requirements (Title III), improving the administration of elections for federal office, 

educating voters, training election officials and pool workers, and developing a State plan 

for requirements payments. 

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

lever action voting systems. 

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

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

Statewide voter registration lists, and voters who register by mail. 
3

Title II also requires that states must: 

• Have appropriated funds equal to five percent of the total amount to be spent for 

activities for which requirements payments are made.

• Maintain the expenditures of the State for activities funded by the requirements payment 

at a level that is not less than the expenditures maintained by the State for the fiscal year 

ending prior to November 2000. 

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

activities for which requirements payments are made, for the Federal requirements 

payments received, for other amounts as may be appropriated under law and for interest 

earned on deposits of the fund. 

The Awardee – The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

The HAVA funds were awarded to the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who is 

the Chief Election Officer and is charged with the administration of federal and state elections, 

receiving nomination papers, printing ballots and tabulating election returns for federal and state 

elections as well as certification of voting equipment. Federal and state elections are conducted 

at the municipal level.

Help America Vote Act Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Plan

The Secretary of the Commonwealth appointed a State Steering Committee to develop the State 

Plan. The Steering Committee formed three sub-committees: Voter Identification and 

Provisional Voting, Voting Equipment and Accessibility, and Training and Education. The 

subcommittees held public hearings in various locations to seek public comment.

The objectives of the project funded by HAVA, as set forth in the state plan, were to purchase 

and implement new voting equipment to replace those municipalities using lever machines or 

datavote machines; provide increased access to the elections process for people with disabilities; 

modify the Central Voter Registry; implement a comprehensive voter education program, 

implement a toll-free line that allows voters to check the status of their provisional ballots; and 

train elections officials in Title II requirement of the Act. 

The Secretary of Commonwealth established and is maintaining an Election Fund for the 

exclusive purpose of carrying out activities of HAVA. Additionally, the Office has managed all 

expenditures funded by HAVA and has not distributed any of the requirements payments to the 

local units of government, except for reimbursements of equipment purchases.
4

AUDIT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the Office: 

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

Grant and applicable requirements; 

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

program income; 

3. Met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for creation of an election fund,

providing required matching contributions, and meeting the requirements for

maintenance of a base level of state outlays, commonly referred to as Maintenance of 

Expenditures (MOE). 

In addition to accounting for Grant payments, the Grant 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 Grant funds to 

comply with certain financial management requirements, specifically: 

• Comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements with State and Local Government, 41 CFR 105-71, (originally Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A-102, also known as the “Common Rule”). 

• Expend payments in accordance with cost principles set forth in Cost Principles for State 

and Local Governments, 2 CFR 225, (originally Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-87) for establishing the allowability or unallowability of certain items of cost 

for federal participation.

• Follow the requirements of the Federal Cash Management and Improvement Act. 

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

• Comply with the provisions of Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit

Organizations (Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133).
5

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We audited the Grant funds received and disbursed by the Office from May 2, 2003 through 

September 30, 2012 as shown in the following table:

Section 101 $ 6,590,381 $ - $ 886,100 $ 7,476,481 $ 3,476,354

Section 102 1,519,497 - 11,491 1,530,988 1,530,988

Section 251 57,005,181 333,696 9,603,034 66,941,911 21,396,726

Total $ 65,115,059 $ 333,696 $ 10,500,625 $ 75,949,380 $ 26,404,068

FUNDS 

DISBURSED

FUNDS RECEIVED

TYPE OF 

PAYMENT

 EAC 

PAYMENT 

STATE 

MATCH

INTEREST 

EARNED

TOTAL 

AVAILABLE

Notes to Table of Funds Received and Disbursed:

(1) The Required State Match is $3,000,273. As noted in Finding No. 4 the Office did not 

make the required matching contributions into the Election Fund.

(2) The Interest Earned is allocated to the respective sections based on analysis provided by 

the Office.

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.

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

that the Office accounted for and expended the HAVA funds in accordance with the 

requirements mentioned above for the period from May 2, 2003 through September 30, 2012. 

The exceptions to applicable compliance requirements are described below.

Finding No. 1 – Financial Reporting

The Office submitted financial reports that could not be supported by underlying accounting 

records.
6

Additionally, the terms and conditions of the HAVA awards require the submission of accurate 

and complete Federal Forms 269 (Financial Status Report) and 425 (Federal Financial Report) 

which reflect the uses of award funds and the interest and program income generated from those 

funds. HAVA Title IX, Section 902. AUDITS AND REPAYMENT OF FUNDS, Part (a) –

Recordkeeping Requirement states, “Each recipient of a grant or other payment made under this 

Act shall keep such records with respect to the payment as are consistent with sound accounting 

principles, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of 

funds, the total cost of the project or undertaking for which such funds are used, and the amount 

of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other 

records as will facilitate an effective audit.” 

The Office submitted financial reports for Section 101 and Section 251 through September 2012 

and submitted its final financial reports for Section 102 as of September 30, 2010. Only the 

Section 102 report was supported by the accounting records. A summary of the reconciliation of 

the Section 101 and Section 251 financial reports to the accounting records as of September 30, 

2012 is as follows:

Section 101 Section 251

Report Report

Federal Share of Expenditures $ 3,284,488 $ 20,209,598

Recipient Share of Expenditures - 3,949,621

Total Expenditures Reported $ 3,284,488 $ 24,159,219

Actual Expenditures Incurred 3,476,354 21,396,726

Expenditures (Under)/Over $ (191,866) $ 2,762,493

The variances are comprised of the following:

The financial reports for the Section 101 funds did not include $81,220 of expenditures and a 

$6,928 refund recorded in the accounting system. Additionally, the financial report was 

overstated by $3,714 as a result of discounts received not being considered and errors in 

calculations. Finally, in fiscal year 2010 the Office incurred $121,288 in Section 101 

expenditures. However, the amount was erroneously excluded from the cumulative amount in the 

report. This resulted in an overstatement for that period of $242,575 which was partially 

corrected in the 2011 financial report. 

The financial reports for the Section 251 funds did not include $334,112 of expenditures 

recorded in the accounting system. Additionally, $1,002 was either a duplicate transaction 

recorded as Section 101 or the discounts received which were not considered in the financial 

reports. Finally, in fiscal year 2010 the Office erroneously reported $3,095,603 of Federal 

outlays as both Federal and recipient share.

The accounting system used by the Office does not allow a single query to be produced to 

identify all of the transactions that occurred during a given reporting period. The accounting 
7

system is able to produce a listing of disbursements made with HAVA funds but would not 

include any of the inter-departmental transactions that occurred between the Office and the 

Registry of Motor Vehicles or adjusting journal entries. Through review of the budgetary records 

maintained for the fund there were five transactions totaling $109,730 that were identified, but 

were not disclosed as expenditures on the financial reports. The general ledger also included 

three invoices totaling $298,675 that were omitted from the financial reports. This resulted in a 

total of $408,405 of unreported HAVA expenditures. 

It should be noted that the Office submitted revised financial reports for Section 101, 102 and 

251 as of September 30, 2012.

Recommendation:

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to implement controls to ensure that grant 

activity is reconciled periodically to ensure that the Federal financial reports reflect actual 

activity of the election fund.

Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Response:

The Division has implemented the necessary internal controls to ensure that accurate future 

financial reporting on cumulative reports by individual grant is supported by underlying 

accounting records. Further, the Division has established enhanced oversight to properly 

track expenditures and account for grant funds to ensure compliance with HAVA. The 

Division will regularly monitor HAVA grant activity, which will be reconciled quarterly.

Also, the Division has submitted revised financial reports to address the concerns noted in 

the finding.

Auditor’s Response:

The submission of the revised FSRs as of September 30, 2012 and the implementation of 

internal controls regarding financial reporting are responsive to the concern.

Finding No. 2 – Interest Earned on Federal Funds

The Office untimely credited interest earnings to the Elections Fund.

Cash management requirements as set forth in 41 CFR § 105-71.121 (f) address the effect of 

interest income on grant payments, and states that “grantees and subgrantees shall disburse 

program income, rebates, refunds, contract settlements, audit recoveries and interest earned on 

such funds before requesting additional cash payments.”

The Office worked with the State Treasurer and State Comptroller in order to establish the 

Election Fund as an interest bearing account. The Election Fund did not have interested credited 

to the fund until April 2006. The Office received approximately $60 million in Section 101, 102 

and 251 payments from EAC beginning in May 2003 through September 2004. Therefore, there 

are approximately three years of interest earned that have not been credited to the fund. 
8

The Office prepared an analysis of interest earnings for the fund based on the transactions from 

the initial deposit of Section 101 funds on May 2, 2003 through April 2006. This analysis 

provided interest earnings totaling $2,907,298 that were not credited to the fund. It was noted 

that $2,754,129 was transferred into the HAVA bank account in April and May 2006. However, 

the interest transferred was not appropriated to the Election Fund in the accounting records.

Recommendation:

We recommend that the EAC require the Office to calculate the amount of interest to transfer to 

the election fund for the untimely crediting of interest earnings. This calculation should consider 

the period from the inception of the HAVA grant funds through the date of transfer and include 

any compound interest. The amount determined should be transferred into the election fund.

Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Response:

The Division, in conjunction with the Massachusetts State Treasurer and State Comptroller, 

established the Election Fund as an interest bearing account. The Division acknowledges that 

for a brief period of time, the interest earned on the account was not properly credited back to 

the Election Fund. 

The Division has now calculated the remaining amount of interest as $153,169 and the 

compound interest as $23,286 to be transferred into the Election Fund. These figures include 

the period from the inception of the HAVA grant funds through June 30, 2013. The Deposit 

of these funds into the Election Fund will properly allocate the interest earned on HAVA 

grant funds and remedy any untimely crediting of interest earnings.

The Division is currently working with the Massachusetts State Treasurer and State 

Comptroller to complete this transfer and properly allocate and credit the appropriate interest 

to the Election Fund.

Auditor’s Response:

The corrective action is responsive to the concerns.

Finding No. 3 – Inadequate Equipment Management

The Office’s property records are inadequate.

The Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State 

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

“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 
9

of disposal and sale price of the property and (2) A physical inventory of the property must be 

taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years.”

The Office’s purchases of equipment with HAVA funds included workstations for the 

municipalities in order to synch them with the State system, Voter Assist Terminals, 

reimbursements to municipalities for the replacement of punch card or lever voting systems, 

memory cards for the voting equipment and other hardware used for database storage and 

networking. The Office has delegated authority and maintenance of the equipment purchased to 

various staff according to the type of asset. The Office was able to provide inventory listings for 

all equipment that is still operable based on the sample selection of transactions. However, it 

cannot be assured that all assets have been inventoried based on the decentralized inventory 

maintenance.

The inventory listings that have been provided for the different types of assets vary in content 

and only the inventory listing provided for the Voter Assist Terminals contained all of the 

required information. The other inventory listings were incomplete as follows:

• The workstations inventory did not include the acquisition date, cost of the property or 

percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the property.

• The inventory for the voting systems replacing the punch card or lever voting systems did 

not include the acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation 

in the cost of the property, the use and condition of the property or any ultimate 

disposition data.

• The memory cards inventory did not include the original acquisition date, cost of the 

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

condition of the property.

• The inventory of the hardware maintained at an off-site data center does not include the 

acquisition date, cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation or any ultimate 

disposition data.

The Office does not formally document the performance of a physical inventory. The Office 

indicated that periodically the municipalities are required to submit inventory lists so that they 

can be compared to their inventory records. The Common Rule requires a physical inventory to 

be conducted once every two years and the results reconciled to the inventory records. Without 

adequate documentation of the physical inventory it cannot be assured that all equipment 

purchased with Federal funds are adequately accounted for and safeguarded.

The audit physically observed approximately 25% of the AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminals 

located at four municipalities and those maintained by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The 

total number of machines was accounted for at each location and agreed to the inventory listing. 

However, it was identified that one serial number inspected was assigned to a different 

municipality on the inventory list. Additionally, the audit inspected the workstations, monitors 
10

and printers that were purchased for the municipalities to connect to the State’s network at four 

of the municipalities. The inspection substantiated the inventory listing as provided.

Recommendation:

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

Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Office:

(a) Implement procedures to ensure that an inventory listing is created and maintained for 

equipment purchased with HAVA funds that complies with the Common Rule.

(b) An analysis should also be performed to ensure that all purchases have been ultimately 

recorded through those inventory records.

(c) Conduct a physical inventory at least once every two years and formally document the 

performance and any reconciliation efforts.

Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Response:

The Division has undertaken comprehensive measures to ensure that all inventory of 

equipment, including workstations, voting systems, memory cards, and hardware maintained 

off-site purchased with HAVA funds is catalogued, updated, and maintained pursuant to the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State 

and Local Governments (OMB Circular A-102), 41 CFR § 105-71.132(d) (the Common 

Rule). Specifically, inventory listings have been amended to ensure inclusion of all of the 

following information required by the Common Rule: description of property; serial number 

or other identifying number; source of property; titleholder of property; date of acquisition; 

property costs; percentage of Federal participation in the cost of the property; location of the 

property; use and condition of property; and disposition data and sale price of property.

The Division currently conducts ongoing inventory evaluations that exceed the requirements 

under HAVA, and will conduct a comprehensive physical inventory and reconcile results 

with the property records at least once every two years. In addition, all municipalities within 

the Commonwealth have been informed of their obligations under HAVA regarding 

equipment inventory management and recordkeeping for equipment that has been paid for in 

any part using HAVA funds.

Auditor’s Response:

The corrective action plan is responsive to the concerns.

Finding No. 4 – HAVA Section 251 State Match

The Office did not deposit into the election fund the required state match for all Section 251 

requirements payments. 
11

As a condition to receiving Section 251 requirements payments the State has to certify that it is 

in compliance with section 253(b) of the Act. Section 253(b)(5) states that “The State has 

appropriated funds for carrying out the activities for which the requirements payment is made in 

an amount equal to 5 percent of the total amount to be spent for such activities...”

Additionally HAVA Section 254(b)(1) requires that the following monies be deposited into its 

election fund:

(a) Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by the State for carrying out the 

activities for which the requirements payment is made to the State under this part.

(b) The requirements payment made to the State under this part.

(c) Such other amounts as may be appropriated under law.

(d) Interest earned on deposits of the fund.

The Office received $57,005,182 in Section 251 funds as of September 30, 2012, which resulted 

in a matching requirement of $3,000,273. The initial matching requirement of $2,748,538 for the 

2003 and 2004 requirements payment was never deposited into the fund. The Office has 

deposited State matching funds of $251,735 in order to satisfy the matching requirement for only 

the 2008 and 2009 payments. Additionally, $81,961 was deposited into the fund as State match 

to meet the requirement for the 2010 funds. However, the State elected not to certify for the 2010 

funds and still maintained the State match in the election fund. This resulted in questioned costs 

of $2,666,577 for the matching requirement not met as of September 30, 2012. Further, this 

resulted in lost interest earnings on the matching contributions not made from the date of the 

receipt of Section 251 funds through the date of transfer into the election fund.

The Office performed an analysis during fieldwork which identified $1,466,662 of State funded 

expenditures that were HAVA eligible. Additionally, the Office identified $344,426 that was not 

reimbursed to the municipalities for replacement of punch card or lever voting machines. This 

would provide support for the resolution for $1,811,088 of the $2,666,577 questioned costs. The 

audit did not evaluate the propriety of any additional matching expenditures identified by the 

Office since they are historical costs that were not initially considered as a matching 

contribution.

Recommendation:

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

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office:

(a) Deposit adequate matching funds into the election fund to satisfy the $2,666,577 in 

questioned costs. This amount may consider the analysis provided by the Office as a 

reduction of $1,811,088 of the required $2,666,577.
12

(b) Calculate the amount of interest to transfer to the election fund for the untimely deposit 

of matching funds. This calculation should consider the period from the date the 

requirements payments were received through the date the matching requirement was met 

and include any compound interest through the date of the transfer. The amount 

determined should be transferred into the election fund.

Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Response:

The Division acknowledges that $57,005,182 in Section 251 funds was received as of 

September 30, 2012 and resulted in a state matching requirement of $3,000,273 pursuant to 

HAVA, 42 U.S.C. § 15401/4 (establishing the 5% matching requirement). The Division has 

reviewed its HAVA obligations and accounted for all but $185,102 of the questioned costs of 

$2,666,577.

During the audit process, the Division provided MLA with documentation of $1,811,088 

in matching state expenditures made with state monies, which would have qualified to be 

paid for using HAVA funds, similar to the accepted state match practice used in many other 

states. The finding states that during fieldwork, the Division identified $344,426 of the 

$1,811,088 that “was not reimbursed to the municipalities for replacement of punch card or 

lever voting machines.” The Division would like to clarify that 100% of the monies received 

under Section 102, which were specifically for replacement of punch card and lever 

machines, were provided to municipalities for reimbursement in addition to a percentage of 

Section 101 funds. While HAVA authorized an appropriation of $4,000 for each precinct that 

used punch card or lever voting machines during the 2000 Presidential Election for 

replacement of such equipment, the actual appropriation was $3,192 per precinct. The 

amounts available to Massachusetts under Section 102 ($1,519,497) did not cover full 

reimbursement to the cities and towns. Accordingly, after consultation with MLA, the 

Division utilized the additional amounts paid by the municipalities as state matching funds. 

The Division will make documentation available for the EAC supporting this position.

Further, on July 12, 2013, $716,511 was deposited into the Election Fund. Of this total 

amount, $432,020 was allocated to the interest on the state match, which satisfies the state 

matching interest requirement. The remaining $284,491 was allocated to the state match.

The Division has incurred additional matching expenses of $385,896 for programming and 

related costs for the AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminals, accessible voting equipment 

required by HAVA, associated with the Special U.S. Senate Primary held on April 30, 2013 

and General Election held on June 25, 2013. This reduces the remaining obligation of 

$570,998 to $185,102. The Division has also incurred additional expenses associated with 

the statewide database of registered voters required by HAVA, which qualify as state 

matching expenses. Of those costs, $185,102 has been paid for with state funds, which 

fulfills the state match requirements. The Division can provide this documentation to both the 

OIG and EAC, if necessary. 

Accordingly, the Division has fully expended State matching funds as required by HAVA. 

The Division has established procedures to maintain proper compliance with the 5% state 
13

matching requirement under HAVA for any future requests for requirements payments that 

may be available.

Auditor’s Response:

The corrective action, pending approval from EAC, is responsive to the concerns. It should 

be noted that the use of prior year State funded expenditures to meet the required match may 

affect the level of expenditures maintained by the State to meet the MOE requirement.

Finding No. 5 – Improper Use of HAVA Award Funds

The Office expended HAVA funds for purposes that are not allowable under the award’s terms 

and conditions or HAVA regulations.

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.

In December 2009 the Office paid for the creation of two broadcast television Public Service 

Announcement’s (PSA) to promote voting in the Special Federal Election cycle for 

Massachusetts’ United States Senator. The subject of these PSAs was to inform the public that it 

was time for a Special Federal Election and that absentee ballots were available. The subject 

matter indicates “get out the vote” activities instead of educating the voters as allowed by 

Section 101 of HAVA.

The Office expended $18,965 for the creation of the PSAs and also expended $98,272 for the 

distribution of the PSAs to the local television networks. The total of $117,237 was spent using 

Section 251 funds without a certification filed with the EAC as provided for in section 251(b)(2) 

of HAVA. The Office subsequently filed the EAC certification on July 8, 2013 which was 

subsequent to the fieldwork. The audit noted approximately $427,407 was provided to the 

marketing firm that distributed the advertising using Section 251 funds during the period under 

review.

In its Funding Advisory Opinion FAO-08-005, the EAC states, “Neither Section 101 nor 251 

funds can be used for “get out the vote” activities. In those cases where it is not clear whether a 

registration activity is educational or a get out the vote effort (i.e. encouraging citizens to vote on 
14

Election Day), the State should contact EAC for a determination on the basis of the specific 

circumstances.”

The Funding Advisory Opinion further notes that, “Section 251 funds may be used for 

instructing individuals how to vote in the same manner as Section 101 funds if a State has 

submitted to the Election Assistance Commission one of the two certification provided for in 

section 251(b)(2) of HAVA.”

The Office also developed an information booklet for voters that included a mail-in voter 

registration card. The booklet provided the public information on the impact of the Help America 

Vote Act of 2002, how to register to vote, voting procedures and voting rights by absentee 

ballots. The cost of this booklet was allocated to both HAVA funds and State funds. The cost of 

printing the mail-in voter registration cards was $78,636.

In its above-referenced Funding Advisory Opinion, the EAC noted that, “Neither Section 101 

nor 251 funds may be used to print, copy, or revise State voter registration forms. Providing 

voter registration forms is an activity that States have been carrying out for years, is not a 

requirement imposed by HAVA, is not educational (even if there are instructions on the form), is 

not an improvement to the administration of elections for Federal office and must continue to be 

funded by the State.”

The cost associated with the 2009 PSA ads and the mail-in voter registration cards are not 

allowable charges to the HAVA award. Accordingly, costs of $195,873 charged to the award are 

questioned costs.

Recommendation:

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

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office:

(a) Transfer to the election fund $195,873 for the questioned costs cited above.

(b) Determine if advertising costs paid for with Section 251 funds are allowable due to the 

untimely certification as provided by Section 251(b)(2) of HAVA

Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Response:

The Division understands that HAVA authorizes payments to the Commonwealth and other 

states as noted above.

The finding questions the use of HAVA funds for Public Service Announcements (PSAs) 

and the printing of voter registration forms provided as part of an informational booklet sent 

to voters. Yet the EAC’s website for Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) relative to HAVA 

funds states that voter education is allowable. In FAQ #23, the question asks whether a state 

or local government may use HAVA funds to produce and run radio and TV spots about 

registration deadlines, rights and responsibilities, absentee voting, information about 
15

grievance procedures, provisional ballots and ID requirements. The answer provided is 

generally, yes.1 The Division believes that these activities serve to educate voters and are 

therefore eligible to be paid for using HAVA funds.

Specifically, in December 2009, the Division used Section 251 funds for the creation of two 

broadcast television PSAs to inform the public of an upcoming Special Election for U.S. 

Senate and the procedure for obtaining absentee ballots. The purpose of the PSAs was to 

inform voters of their rights to participate in this Federal election and educate voters about 

the absentee ballot process in Massachusetts. The special election was held on January 19, 

2010, in the middle of the winter, during a time when Federal elections do not normally take 

place. This was the first time a special election of this kind was held in Massachusetts. 

Accordingly, timely notification to voters of their rights to participate in this Federal special 

election was important and necessary. In addition, providing information on absentee ballot 

procedures was imperative given that Massachusetts law does not permit early voting or “noexcuse” absentee voting.2 Consequently, unless otherwise qualified, all voters must vote at 

the polls on Election Day. Due to the potential for inclement winter weather, which has been 

shown to have a direct impact on the ability of many voters to go to the polls and participate, 

it was essential to educate voters prior to the special election of how to qualify and obtain an 

absentee ballot.

The Division acknowledges that Section 251 funds were used for the PSAs in question. In 

EAC advisory opinion (09-001), the EAC states that “Certifications filed under Section 

251(b)(2) are applicable to periods prior to the submission of the certifications.”3 On July 10, 

2013, the Division certified to the EAC that the Commonwealth met the requirements of 

Title III of HAVA as of January 1, 2008. A copy of the certification was also provided to 

MLA. Therefore, the Division believes that the PSA costs paid for with Section 251 funds 

are permitted. If, however, the EAC determines that the certification of Section 251 funds 

was not timely, the Division respectfully suggests that in the alternative, Section 101 funds 

could have been used and are available for this purpose. Accordingly, if necessary, the 

financial reports for both Section 101 and Section 251 funds could be amended to designate 

the expenditure from Section 101 funds and document a credit to the Section 251 funds.

The Division printed and distributed an educational information booklet for voters that 

included a mail-in voter registration form paid for in part with Section 101 HAVA funds. As 

noted in the finding, the booklet provided the public information on the impact of the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 including new voter identification requirements for first-time 

voters, how to register to vote, voting procedures and voting rights by absentee ballots.

This expense was incurred in 2004, four years prior to the first guidance issued by the EAC 

on the issue of using HAVA funds for printing voter registration forms. Although, FAO 08-

 1 A copy of that document can be found at: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Documents/4712.PDF. 2 Under Amendments Article 105 of the Massachusetts Constitution and Chapter 54, section 86 of the Massachusetts 

General Laws, a voter may only vote absentee if they are absent from their city or town during the voting hours, are 

unable to vote in person because of a disability or because of religious beliefs. 3 A copy of that opinion can be found at: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/FAO-09-001%20EAC.pdf.
16

005 states that Section 101 funds may not be used to print voter registration forms, it also 

states: “[E]ducating voters on voting procedures would include providing instructions on 

how to register to vote...” It further states that “Section 101 funds may be used at any time to 

instruct individuals on how to register to vote.” The voter registration forms in question 

contained additional information regarding how to register to vote and the applicable 

deadlines for registering to vote in order to be eligible to vote in the 2004 Presidential 

election. The form also contained information regarding the new identification requirements 

for first-time voters under HAVA. This additional information supplemented the standard 

instructions that appear on all voter registration forms and clearly was a voter education 

effort allowable under HAVA.

The Division believes that the questioned costs for the PSAs and printing of mail-in voter 

registration cards are activities eligible to be paid for using HAVA funds. The Division looks 

forward to working with the EAC by providing them with documentation and justification to 

support these expenditures.

Auditor’s Response:

We recommend that EAC provide further guidance on the allowability of the Public Service 

Announcements and the printing of voter registration forms.

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

Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Office. We considered any comments received prior to 

finalizing this report.

The Office responded on August 29, 2013 and generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations except as noted in the responses. The EAC respond on August 12, 2013 stated 

that 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 the EAC’s complete 

response as Appendix A-2.

McBride, Lock & Associates performed the related audit procedures between February 25, 2013

and July 9, 2013. 

(Original Signed by McBride, Lock & Associates)

McBride, Lock & Associates

July 9, 2013
APPENDIX A-1
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth 

Elections Division 

Mr. Curtis Crider 

Inspector General 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Mr. Crider: 

August 29, 2013 

The Elections Division within the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth 

(Division) welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Draft Audit Report (DAR) 

prepared by McBride, Lock & Associates (MLA) in connection with the Division's 

administration of payments received under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HA VA). 

The Division cooperated fully with the performance audit, providing all documents 

requested and making its employees available to answer questions. The Division would 

like to thank MLA, in particular Mr. Ray Miller, for its professionalism during the audit 

process being conducted on behalf of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), an 

independent division of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC). 

Since the inception of HA VA, the Division has taken extra care when contemplating the 

use of HA VA funds and implementing requirements in accordance with HA VA The 

Division appreciates the opportunity to provide written responses to the Notice of 

Findings and Recommendations and is committed to resolving any concerns set forth in 

the DAR. We appreciate the acknowledgement ofthe corrective actions we have already 

taken and the further ability to provide additional explanation during the exit interview. 

Please find our written responses below. 

DAR 1 - Financial Reporting 

The Division is required to utilize payments authorized by HA VA Sections 1 01 , 102, and 

251 in accordance with HA VA and applicable administrative requirements; accurately 

and properly account for property purchased with HA VA payments and for program 

One Ash burton Place, 17th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 021 08 

(617) 727-2828 • 1-800-462-VOTE (8683) 

website: www. sec. state. rna. us/ele • e-mail: elections@sec. state. rna. us 
Mr. Curtis Crider 

Page Two 

August 29, 2013 

income; and meet HA VA requirements under Section 251 in administering HA VA funds 

and its matching contribution. 

Appropriate corrective action has been taken to ensure that the cumulative data reported 

to the EAC reflects detailed state records. The Division submitted revised financial 

reports for Sections 101, 102 and 251, which the DAR acknowledges, correcting all but 

one of the accounting issues documented in the DAR for the reporting period ending 

September 30, 2012. 1 Only one minor accounting exception remains outstanding - a 

$3,894.00 payment refund relative to the Section 251 funds. On July 24, 2013, the 

Division filed an amended report with the EAC to correct the sole remaining exception, a 

copy of which was provided. 

The Division has implemented the necessary internal controls to ensure that accurate 

future financial reporting of cumulative reports by individual grant is supported by 

underlying accounting records. Further, the Division has established enhanced oversight 

to properly track expenditures and account for grant funds to ensure compliance with 

HA VA. The Division will regularly monitor HA VA grant activity, which will be 

reconciled quarterly. 

DAR 2-Interest Earned on Federal Funds 

The Division, in conjunction with the Massachusetts State Treasurer and State 

Comptroller, established the Election Fund as an interest bearing account. The Division 

acknowledges that for a brief period of time, the interest earned on the account was not 

properly credited back to the Election Fund. 

The Division has since calculated the remaining amount of interest as $153,169.00 and 

the compound interest as $23,228.17 to be transferred into the Election Fund. These 

figures include the period from the inception of the HAVA grant funds through June 30, 

2013. The deposit of these funds has been made into the Election Fund, which properly 

allocates the interest earned on HA VA grant funds and remedies any untimely crediting 

of interest earnings. 

The Division worked with the Massachusetts State Treasurer and State Comptroller to 

complete this transfer and properly allocate and credit the appropriate interest to the 

Election Fund. 

1 The revised Section 102 report, submitted to the EAC on June 7, 2013, did not amend any financial data, 

but instead reflected that the report was "Final," as all monies have been previously expended. 
Mr. Curtis Crider 

Page Three 

August 29, 2013 

DAR 3 -Inadequate Equipment Management 

The Division has undertaken comprehensive measures to ensure that all inventory of 

equipment, including workstations, voting systems, memory cards, and hardware 

maintained off-site purchased with HA VA funds is catalogued, updated, and maintained 

pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants (OMB Circular A-102), 

41 CFR § 105-71.132 (d) (the Common Rule). Specifically, inventory listings have been 

amended to ensure the inclusion of all of the following information required by the 

Common Rule: description of property; serial number or other identifying number; 

source of property; titleholder of property; date of acquisition; property cost; percentage 

of Federal participation in the cost of the property; location of the property; use and 

condition of property; and disposition data and sale price of property. 

The Division currently conducts ongoing inventory evaluations that exceed the 

requirements under HA VA, and will conduct a comprehensive physical inventory and 

reconcile results with the property records at least once every two years. In addition, all 

municipalities within the Commonwealth have been informed of their obligations under 

HAVA regarding equipment inventory management and recordkeeping for equipment 

that has been paid for in any part using HA VA funds. 

DAR 4- HA VA Section 251 State Match 

This Division acknowledges that $57,005,182.00 in Section 251 funds was received as of 

September 30, 2012 and resulted in a state matching requirement of $3,000,273.00 

pursuant to HA VA, 42 U.S.C. § 15401/4 (establishing the 5% matching requirement). 

The Division has reviewed its HA VA obligations and accounted for all but $185,102.22 

ofthe questioned costs of $2,666,577.00. 

During the audit process, the Division provided MLA with documentation of 

$1,811,088.00 in matching state expenditures made with state monies, which would have 

qualified to be paid for using HAVA funds, similar to the accepted state match practice 

used in many other states. The DAR states that during fieldwork, the Division identified 

$344,426.00 of the $1 ,811,088.00 that "was not reimbursed to the municipalities for 

replacement of punch card or lever voting machines." The Division would like to clarify 

that 100% of the monies received under Section 102, which were specifically for 

replacement of punch card and lever machines, were provided to municipalities for 

reimbursement in addition to a percentage of Section 101 funds. While HAVA 

authorized an appropriation of $4,000.00 for each precinct that used punch card or lever 

voting machines during the 2000 Presidential Election for replacement of such 

equipment, the actual appropriation was $3,192.22 per precinct. The amounts available 

to Massachusetts under Section 102 ($1,519,497.00) did not cover full reimbursement to 

the cities and towns. Accordingly, after consultation with MLA, the Division utilized the 
Mr. Curtis Crider 

Page Four 

August 29, 2013 

additional amounts paid by the municipalities as state matching funds. The Division will 

make documentation available to the EAC supporting this position. 

Further, on July 12, 2013, $716,511.00 was deposited into the Election Fund. Of this 

total amount, $432,020.22 was allocated to the interest on the state match, which satisfies 

the state matching interest requirement. The remaining $284,490.78 was allocated to the 

state match. 

The Division has incurred additional matching expenses of $385,896.00 for programming 

and related costs for the AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminals, accessible voting 

equipment required by HAVA, associated with the Special U.S. Senate Primary held on 

April 30, 2013 and General Election held on June 25, 2013. This reduces the remaining 

obligation of $570,998.22 to $185,102.22. The Division has also incurred additional 

expenses associated with the statewide database of registered voters required by HA VA, 

which qualify as state matching expenses. Of those costs, $185,102.22 has been paid for 

with state funds, which fulfills the state match requirements. The Division can provide 

this documentation to both the OIG and EAC, if necessary. 

Accordingly, the Division has fully expended state matching funds as required by 

HAV A. Further, the Division has established procedures to maintain proper compliance 

with the 5% state matching requirement under HA VA for any future requests for 

requirements payments that may be available. 

DAR 5- Improper Use ofHAVA Award Funds 

The Division understands that HA VA authorizes payments to the Commonwealth and 

other states as follows: 

1. Section 101 payments are for activities such as complying with HA VA 

requirements 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. 

2. Section 102 payments are available only for the replacement of punch card and 

lever action voting systems. 

3. Section 251 requirements payments are for complying with HAVA requirements 

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

information, statewide voter registration lists and voters who register by mail. 
Mr. Curtis Crider 

Page Five 

August 29, 2013 

The DAR questions the use of HAVA funds for Public Service Announcements (PSAs) 

and the printing of voter registration forms provided as part of an informational booklet 

sent to voters. Yet, the EAC's website for Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) relative to 

HA VA funds states that voter education is allowable. In F AQ # 23, the question asks 

whether a state or local government may use HA VA funds to produce and run radio and 

TV spots about registration deadlines, rights and responsibilities, absentee voting, 

information about grievance procedures, provisional ballots and ID requirements. The 

answer provided is generally, yes.2 The Division believes that these activities serve to 

educate the voters and are therefore eligible to be paid for using HA VA funds. 

Specifically, in December 2009, the Division used Section 251 funds for the creation of 

two broadcast television PSAs to inform the public of an upcoming Special Election for 

U.S. Senate and the procedure for obtaining absentee ballots. The purpose of the PSAs 

was to inform voters of their rights to participate in this federal election and educate 

voters about the absentee ballot process in Massachusetts. The special election was held 

on January 19, 2010, in the middle ofthe winter, during a time when federal elections do 

not normally take place. This was the first time a special election of this kind was held in 

Massachusetts. Accordingly, timely notification to voters of their rights to participate in 

this federal special election was important and necessary. In addition, providing 

information on absentee ballot procedures was imperative given that Massachusetts law 

does not permit early voting or "no-excuse" absentee voting.3 Consequently, unless 

otherwise qualified, all voters must vote at the polls on Election Day. Due to the 

potential for inclement winter weather, which has been shown to have a direct impact on 

the ability of many voters to go to the polls and participate, it was essential to educate 

voters prior to the special election of how to qualify and obtain an absentee ballot. 

The Division acknowledges that Section 251 funds were used for the PSAs in question. 

In EAC advisory opinion (09-001), the EAC states that "Certifications filed under 

Section 251 (b )(2) are applicable to periods prior to the submission of the certifications. "

4 

On July 10, 2013, the Division certified to the EAC that the Commonwealth met the 

requirements of Title III of the HA VA as of January 1, 2008. A copy of the certification 

was also provided to the MLA. Therefore, the Division believes that the PSA costs paid 

for with Section 251 funds are permitted. If, however, the EAC determines that the 

certification of Section 251 funds was not timely, the Division respectfully suggests that 

2 A copy of that document can be found at: 

http://www .eac. gov/assets/1 /workflow staging/Documents/4 712.PDF. 3 Under Amendments Article 105 of the Massachusetts Constitution and Chapter 54, section 86 of the 

Massachusetts General Laws, a voter may only vote absentee if they are absent from their city or town 

during the voting hours, are unable to vote in person because of a disability or because of religious beliefs. 4 A copy of that opinion can be found at: http://www.eac.gov/assets/I/AssetManager/FA0-09-

00 1 %20EAC.pdf. 
Mr. Curtis Crider 

Page Six 

August 29, 2013 

in the alternative Section 101 funds could have been used and are available for this 

purpose. Accordingly, if necessary, the fmancial reports for both Section 101 and 

Section 251 funds could be amended to designate the expenditure from Section 101 funds 

and document a credit to the Section 251 funds. 

The Division printed and distributed an educational information booklet for voters that 

included a mail-in voter registration form paid for in part with Section 101 HAVA funds. 

As noted in the DAR, the booklet provided the public information on the impact of the 

Help America Vote Act of 2002 including new voter identification requirements for firsttime voters, how to register to vote, voting procedures and voting rights by absentee 

ballots. 

This expense was incurred in 2004, four years prior to the first guidance issued by the 

EAC on the issue of using HA VA funds for printing voter registration forms. Although 

FAO 08-005 states that Section 101 funds may not be used to print voter registration 

forms, it also states: "[E]ducating voters on voting procedures would include providing 

instructions on how to register to vote ... " It further states that "Section 1 0 1 funds may be 

used at any time to instruct individuals on how to register to vote." The voter registration 

forms in question contained additional information regarding how to register to vote and 

the applicable deadlines for registering to vote in order to be eligible to vote in the 2004 

Presidential election. The form also contained information regarding the new 

identification requirements for first-time voters under HAV A. This additional 

information supplemented the standard instructions that appear on all voter registration 

forms and clearly was a voter education effort allowable under HA VA. 

We believe that the questioned costs for these public service announcements and printing 

of mail-in voter registration cards are activities eligible to be paid for using HAVA funds. 

The Division looks forward to working with the EAC, by providing them with 

documentation and justification to support these expenditures. 

Conclusion: 

The Division is proud of its early and ongoing efforts in Massachusetts to ensure 

elections are administered fairly, accurately and efficiently. In addition, the Division 

appreciates the opportunities afforded by HAY A to improve the election process; in 

particular, increasing accessibility to voting and modernizing the statewide database of 

registered voters. The Division will continue to use HA VA funds in accordance with 

HA VA and as set forth in the amended Massachusetts State Plan to improve the 

administration of federal elections in the Commonwealth. Finally, the Division 

welcomes the guidance provided by the EAC on HA VA funding requirements and 

remains committed to working with the OIG and EAC in the future. 
Mr. Curtis Crider 

Page Seven 

August 29, 2013 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you 

have any questions or require any additional information. 
APPENDIX A-2
EAC RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT: 

OIG Performance Audit Report on the Administration of 

Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for the Period May 2003 

through September 30, 2012. 

August 12, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

Curtis Crider 

Inspector General 

Alice P. Miller, Chief Oper~mfflsr& Acting Executive Direc~ 'f~ 

Draft Performance Audit Report - "Administration of Payments 

Received Under the Help America Vote Act by the of 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts" 

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

the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office). 

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

appropriate corrective action. 
25

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 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 

HAVA program.

• Reviewed prior single audit reports related to the State’s financial management systems 

and the HAVA 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 HAVA program.

• Analyzed the inventory lists of equipment purchased with HAVA funds

• Tested major purchases and the supporting documentation.

• Tested randomly sampled payments made with HAVA funds.

• Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information 

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

accounting for property, purchasing HAVA related goods and services.

• Verified the establishment and maintenance of an election fund.

• Verified the State expenditures met the Maintenance of Expenditures requirement.

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

equipment purchased with HAVA funds and ensure compliance with federal regulation.
Appendix C

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

Description

Questioned 

Costs

Additional 

Funds for 

Program

Interest Earned on Federal Funds $ - $ 176,455

Section 251 Matching Requirement 2,666,577 432,020

Unallowable Advertising Costs 117,237 -

Unallowable Printing of Voter 

Registration Cards 78,636 -

Total $2,862,450 $ 608,475
 

 

OIG’s Mission 

 

Help to ensure efficient, effective, and transparent EAC operations and 

programs

 

 

 

 

 

Obtaining Copies 

of OIG Reports 

Copies of OIG reports are available on the OIG website, 

www.eac.gov/inspector_general/

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)

On-Line Complaint Form: www.eac.gov/inspector_general/

FAX: 202-566-0957