U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

FINAL REPORT: 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS 

RECEIVED UNDER THE HELP 

AMERICA VOTE ACT BY THE STATE 

OF FLORIDA 

APRIL 25, 2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2007

Report No. 

E-HP-FL-02-08 

NOVEMBER 2008
U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

1225 New York Ave. NW - Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20005

November 17, 2008 

Memorandum 

To: Thomas Wilkey 

 Executive Director 

From: Curtis W. Crider 

 Inspector General 

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

Act by the State of Florida (Assignment Number E-HP-FL-02-08) 

 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 Florida Secretary of State (SOS). The contract required that the 

audit be done in accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. Clifton 

Gunderson is responsible for the attached auditor’s report and the conclusions expressed therein. 

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

level regarding HAVA related practices involving program income accounting and recognition; 

equipment controls; procurement and disbursement procedures; and cash management controls, our 

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

the HAVA requirements and complied with the financial management requirements established by 

the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The SOS also complied with section 251 requirements. 

In its July 16, 2008 responses to the findings and recommendations (Appendix A), the SOS 

was in general agreement, and proposed to implement corrective action. However, he was in partial 

disagreement with requiring the reimbursement of those questionable expenditures that were included 

in plans approved by the state Division of Elections, and disagreed with the recommendation to have 

counties compute and repay interest that should have been earned on unexpended HAVA balances 

from date of receipt.

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

by January 20, 2009. Specifically, your response should indicate whether you agree or disagree with 

the results of the audit. Your response should also indicate the basis and support for any 

disagreements. In addition, the 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 any questions regarding this report, please call me at (202) 566-3125. 
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED 

UNDER THE HELP 

AMERICA VOTE ACT BY THE 

STATE OF FLORIDA 

April 25, 2003 Through September 30, 2007 

UNITED STATES ELECTION 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 

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

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

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

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

AUDIT RESULTS .......................................................................................................................3 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Secretary Of State’s Response To Audit Results .............................................7 

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

Appendix C: Monetary Impact as of September 30, 2007.....................................................14
 1

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Performance Audit of the Administration of Payments Received Under the 

Help America Vote Act by the State of Florida 

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 Florida Office of 

the Secretary of State (SOS) for the period April 25, 2003 through September 30, 2007 to 

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

Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA or the Act) in accordance with HAVA and applicable 

requirements; accurately and properly accounted for 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. We did not include a determination of whether the SOS and 

its subgrantees met the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state outlays because 

the Commission is reviewing its guidance on the applicability of the maintenance of a base level 

of state outlays to the SOS’s subgrantees. 

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 issues at the county level regarding HAVA related practices, which are discussed 

below, our audit concluded that the SOS accounted for and expended HAVA funds in 

accordance with the requirements mentioned above. The exceptions needing SOS 

management attention are as follows: 

• The state’s oversight and monitoring of its subgrantees should be enhanced to ensure 

compliance with HAVA grant requirements relating to program income accounting and 

recognition; equipment controls; procurement and disbursement procedures; and cash 

management controls. 
 2

We have included in this report the SOS’s formal responses to the findings and 

recommendations dated July 16, 2008. 

BACKGROUND

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the EAC to assist states and insular areas with the 

improvement of the administration of Federal elections and to provide funds to states to help 

implement these improvements. HAVA authorizes payments to states under Titles I and II, as 

follows: 

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

uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, 

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

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

payments. 

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

lever action voting systems. 

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

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

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

Title II also requires that states must: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUDIT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether the State of Florida, Office of the 

Secretary of State: 

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. 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. We did not determine 

whether the SOS met the requirement for maintenance of a base level of state outlays
 3

because the Commission is reviewing its guidance on the applicability of the 

maintenance of a base level of state outlays to subgrantees of the SOS. 

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 SOS from April 25, 2003 through 

September 30, 2007. 

Funds received and disbursed from April 25, 2003 (program initiation date) to September 30, 

2007 (53-month period) are shown below: 

FUNDS RECEIVED 

TYPE OF 

PAYMENT

EAC 

PAYMENT

STATE 

MATCH 

INTEREST

EARNED 

TOTAL 

AVAILABLE

FUNDS 

DISBURSED

DATA 

AS OF

 

101 $ 14,447,580 $ 0 $1,199,135 $15,646,715 $12,158,480 9/30/2007 

102 11,581,377 $ 0 37,355 11,618,732 11,581,077 9/30/2007 

251 132,502,091 6,973,794 12,402,622 151,878,507 86,448,331 9/30/2007 

$158,531,048 $6,973,794 $13,639,112 $179,143,954 $110,187,888 9/30/2007 

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 

 

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 30 for the activities of the previous fiscal year ending on September 30. 
 4

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 state’s lack of monitoring the subgrantees, and for the determination of whether 

the SOS and its subgrantees met the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state 

outlays which were specifically omitted from our scope of audit work as explained above, the 

SOS 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 SOS 

is working to resolve the exceptions in the areas described below: 

Oversight and Monitoring of Subgrantees 

We identified several issues at seven of the eight counties we visited and from responses to 

questionnaires sent to the fifty-nine counties not visited that could have been prevented or 

minimized with enhanced monitoring, as follows: 

1. Reporting of program income 

Program income generated at one of the counties from the use of HAVA funded 

equipment is not properly reported, recorded, or used for the HAVA program. The 

Supervisor of Elections deposited program income in the general fund, and did not make 

a determination of the portion of the income received allocable to the HAVA program 

that should have been reported to the Florida Department of State – Division of 

Elections. 

2. Equipment control procedures not adequate 

There were deficiencies in the procedures for controlling equipment purchased with 

HAVA funds at three of the eight counties visited. The annual equipment inventory at 

one of the counties visited consisted of a scan of the bar codes on the equipment listing, 

but did not include a physical observation of the items to ensure existence. HAVA 

funded computers donated by the State of Florida to two counties were not listed on the 

equipment inventory. The equipment listing at another county did not identify the items 

as purchased with HAVA funds. 

3. Expenditures not an appropriate use of HAVA funds 

In four of eight counties visited expenditures were identified that were questionable uses 

of HAVA funds totaling $89,669. These included payments for educational booklets and 

materials for students of non-voting age; promotional items that did not relate to 

educating voters about voting procedures, rights or technology; costs of organizing and 

conducting voter registration drives; and gifts for pollworkers. 

4. Disbursements not appropriate or not supported at one county 

Two disbursements, totaling $33,083 at one of the counties visited, did not have 

adequate documentation or evidence to support costs claimed against the HAVA grant 

program. 

5. Personnel costs not properly supported 

In one of the counties visited, the total cost for one employee was charged to the HAVA 

grant program; however, there was no certification or other evidence on file to provide 

justification for the charges. 
 5

6. Poll worker charges not appropriate for voter registration drives 

Salaries and benefits for poll workers serving at voter registration drives in one of the 

counties visited were charged to the HAVA voter education grants, and the portion 

allocable to registration activity was not separately stated. Therefore, the total costs for 

the poll workers for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 of $139,056 are questioned. 

7. Interest earned not credited to the election fund 

Interest earned on HAVA funds received by six of the eight counties visited was under 

collected by an undetermined amount. In four of the counties, interest was computed 

and credited to the election fund; however, the determination of interest owed did not 

start upon receipt of HAVA funds from the state. In one county, interest was computed 

on the HAVA balances beginning with the receipt of the funds, but it was not 

compounded, resulting in lost interest of $582.58 as of September 30, 2007. We noted 

that one county did not start computing interest until October 2007, and did not recoup 

additional interest due of $2,639.26 earned on HAVA balances prior to September 30, 

2007. 

8. Cash management not performed properly at all of the counties 

Cash advances of HAVA funds were made to the counties from fiscal year 2004 through 

2007. We noted that cash balances were on hand at 48 of 58 counties that responded 

to the questionnaires sent them, and the reported balances totaled $15,878,530.70 as of 

September 30, 2007. The responses from the counties were varied regarding interest 

earned on unexpended funds, and ranged from depositing interest into the election fund 

to not computing any interest on the outstanding balances. We were unable to 

determine the total amount of interest earned on HAVA fund balances but not credited to 

the election funds for the benefit of the HAVA program. 

Recommendations:

We recommend that the EAC direct Florida’s Secretary of State to strengthen its program for 

monitoring the counties’ use of HAVA funds on a risk-based approach. In addition, the 

Secretary should ensure appropriate corrective action is implemented to address the issues 

noted above. 

SOS Response: 

The Secretary of State expressed general agreement with the issues identified above, and 

proposed to implement corrective action; however, he was in partial disagreement with the 

questionable uses of HAVA funds noted in item 3 and disagreed with item 8, noting that the 

states were not informed that HAVA funding would be treated like other federal funding until 

receipt of the EAC’s Frequently Asked Questions responses or from reading other states’ 

audits, as detailed in Appendix A. 

Auditors’ Response: 

Although we understand the Secretary’s position regarding the concerns expressed in his 

response, we believe that the HAVA and other federal regulations provide appropriate guidance 

on the use and control of federal funding. We recommend that the state contact the EAC to 

address the issues where there is disagreement to determine a satisfactory resolution. 
 6

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

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

the Secretary of State, and the United States Election Assistance Commission. We considered 

any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

a1

CG performed its work between January 14 and February 8, 2008. 

Calverton, Maryland 

August 7, 2008 





 12

Appendix B 

AUDIT METHODOLOGY 

Our audit methodology included: 

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

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

HAVA funds. 

• Understanding relevant information systems controls as applicable. 

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

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

program that could be relevant to the audit objectives. 

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

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

program. 

• Reviewed prior single audit 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 SOS’s management and accounting 

systems as they relate to the administration of HAVA programs. 

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

• Tested major purchases and supporting documentation. 

• 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. 

• 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. 
 13

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

• Conducted site visits of selected counties and local election authorities in St. Louis County 

to perform the following: 

 Observe equipment purchased with HAVA funds for proper accounting and 

safeguarding 

 Test disbursement of HAVA funds for allowability and compliance 

 Test cash receipts from SOS to ensure proper cash management 

 Test procurement of voting equipment for competitive bid process 

 Ensure compliance with HAVA Act 
 14

Appendix C 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 

Description 

Questioned 

Costs 

Additional Funds for 

Program 

 

Interest earned not credited $0 $3,222

Oversight & Monitoring 

• Unallowable costs 89,669 0

• Missing documentation 33,083 0

• Voter registration drives 139,056 0

Totals $261,808 $3,222

Note: In addition to the amounts shown in the schedule above, additional funds for the HAVA 

program should be made available as a result of the resolution of issues related to 

program income and interest earnings as discussed in the report. 
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