U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FINAL REPORT: 

Administration of Payments Received 

Under the Help America Vote Act by the 

New York State Board of Elections 

MAY 1, 2003 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2010 

Report No. 

E-HP-NY-08-10 

March 2011 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300
 

Washington, DC 20005
 

March 7, 2011 

Memorandum 

To: Thomas Wilkey 

Executive Director 

From:	 Curtis W. Crider 

Inspector General 

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

Vote Act by the New York State Board of Elections 

(Assignment Number E-HP-NY-08-10) 

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 New York State Board of Elections (BOE). 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 BOE, Clifton Gunderson concluded that, except for (a) the failure to 

provide state matching funds on a timely basis, resulting in a shortfall in the matching requirement 

and lost interest earnings on the delayed funding, (b) the lack of time cards and semi-annual 

certifications in support of HAVA funded payroll charges, and (c) the failure to maintain adequate 

property records to properly account for HAVA funded equipment, our audit concluded that the 

BOE 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 BOE also complied with section 251 requirements. 

In its December 28, 2010 response to the draft report (Appendix A-1), the BOE agreed with 

the report’s finding and recommendations, and agreed to implement appropriate corrective action. 

On January 4, 2011, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission provided us with a written 

response to the recommendations (Appendix A-2), which indicated general agreement. We would 

appreciate being kept informed of the actions taken on our recommendations as we will track the 

status of their implementation. Please respond in writing to the finding and recommendation 

included in this report by May 7, 2011. Your response should include information on actions taken 

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

The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of Inspector General (5 U.S.C. § App.3) 

requires semiannual reporting to Congress on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement 
 

audit recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented. Therefore, this 

report will be included in our next semiannual report to Congress. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT
 

ADMINISTRATION OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED
 

UNDER THE
 

HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT
 

BY
 

NEW YORK STATE
 

May 1, 2003 Through April 30, 2010
 

UNITED STATES ELECTION
 

ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
 

a1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

............................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.....................

...............

............................................................................................

...............................................................

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

BACKGROUND 2

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 3

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 4

AUDIT RESULTS 4

APPENDICES
 

Appendix A-1: New York State Board of Elections Response to Draft Report 8

Appendix A-2: U. S. Election Assistance Commission Response to Draft Report 9

Appendix B: Audit Methodology 10

Appendix C: Monetary Impact as of April 30, 2010 12
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
 

Performance Audit of the Administration of Payments Received Under the
 

Help America Vote Act by New York State
 

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 New York State 

Board of Elections (BOE) for the period May 1, 2003 through April 30, 2010 to determine 

whether the BOE 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 and for 

a matching contribution. We did not include a determination of whether the BOE and its 

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

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

of state outlays to the BOE’s subgrantees. Since there was no definitive guidance during the 

audit period, Maintenance of Effort was not included in the scope of our audit procedures. On 

June 28, 2010, the Commission issued its revised guidance on the Maintenance of 

Expenditures (MOE) requirement, which includes a provision that the states will have 12 months 

from the date of the policy to submit an MOE plan to the EAC. 

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, Cost Principles for State, Local, and 

Indian Tribal Governments. 

•	 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 (a) the failure to provide state matching funds on a timely basis, resulting in a 

shortfall in the matching requirement and lost interest earnings on the delayed funding, (b) the 

lack of time cards and semi-annual certifications in support of HAVA funded payroll charges, 

and (c) the failure to maintain adequate property records to properly account for HAVA funded 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

equipment, as discussed below, our audit concluded that the BOE generally accounted for and 

expended HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements mentioned above for the period 

from May 1, 2003 through April 30, 2010. The exceptions needing BOE’s management 

attention are summarized below: 

•	 The state was required to deposit a total of $9,052,509 in matching funds into the 

election fund when it received its Section 251 requirements payments. Instead of 

depositing cash into the fund, the state required counties to pay for 5 percent of the cost 

of voting equipment and considered these payments as state matching funds. In 

addition, New York counted state funded election expenditures as part of its match 

requirement. As of April 30, 2010, the state and counties had expended only $8,462,457 

towards the state match leaving a shortfall of $590,052. In addition, because the funds 

were spent after the state received its requirements payments, there was lost interest of 

$1,017,958, which would have accrued had the state made its matching payments 

timely. 

•	 From May 4, 2006 to December 26, 2007, the BOE charged the HAVA fund for payroll 

expenses totaling $495,602. These charges were not supported by semi-annual 

certifications or other documentation, such as time sheets, that showed that employees 

worked on HAVA related activities. 

•	 Inventory listings of HAVA-funded State Voter Registration System equipment did not 

conform to the requirements of 41 C.F.R. 105-71.132 (d) (1), (the Common Rule). The 

listings did not include required elements such as source of the property, who holds title, 

the percentage of federal participation, and condition. 

In an email response to the draft audit report dated December 28, 2010, BOE officials stated that 

they took no exception to the findings and would work with the EAC to ensure that the 

appropriate corrective actions are implemented. The BOE’s official response is included as 

Appendix A-1. 

The draft report, including the BOE responses, was provided to the Executive Director of the 

EAC for review and comment. The EAC responded on January 4, 2011, and generally agreed 

with the report’s review and recommendations. The response indicated that the EAC would 

work with the BOE to ensure appropriate corrective action. The EAC’s complete response is 

included as Appendix A-2. 

BACKGROUND 

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

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

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

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

uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, 

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

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

payments. 

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

lever action voting systems. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

Title II also requires that states must: 

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

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

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

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

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

•	 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 BOE: 

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

HAVA and applicable requirements; 

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

program income; 

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

contribution. We did not determine whether the BOE met the requirement for 

maintenance of a base level of state outlays, because the Commission was reviewing its 

guidance on the applicability of the maintenance of a base level of state outlays to 

subgrantees of the BOE. Since there was no definitive guidance during the audit period, 

Maintenance of Effort was not included in the scope of our audit procedures. On June 

28, 2010, the Commission issued its revised guidance on the Maintenance of 

Expenditures (MOE) requirement, which includes a provision that the states will have 12 

months from the date of the policy to submit a MOE plan to the EAC 

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

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

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

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

comply with certain financial management requirements, specifically: 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

               

          

   

                             

                                                                       

                         

                       

                         

                                    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

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

30, 2010 (84-month period) as shown in the following table: 

FUNDS RECEIVED

TYPE OF 

PAYMENT

EAC

PAYMENT

PROGRAM

INCOME

STATE

MATCH

INTEREST

EARNED

TOTAL

AVAILABLE

FUNDS

DISBURSED

DATA
 

AS OF 
 

Section 101 $ 16,494,325 $ 0 $ 0 $ 3,046,308 $ 19,540,633 $ 13,335,690 4/30/2010

Section 102 49,603,917 0 0 9,138,649 58,742,566 31,295,705 4/30/2010

Section 251 171,997,692 0 0 2

2 New York did not deposit its state match into the election fund at the time it received its requirements payments.
	

Instead, it considered counties’ payments of 5 percent of the cost of voting equipment as meeting the state match.
	

23,588,772 195,586,464 96,091,531 4/30/2010

Total $238,095,934 $ 0 $0 $35,773,729 $273,869,663 $140,722,926 4/30/2010

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 (a) the failure to provide state matching funds on a timely basis, resulting in a 

shortfall in the matching requirement and lost earnings on the delayed funding, (b) the lack of 

time cards and semi-annual certifications in support of HAVA funded payroll charges, and (c) 

the failure to maintain adequate property records to properly account for HAVA funded 

equipment, as discussed below, our audit concluded that the BOE generally accounted for and 

expended HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements mentioned above for the period 

from May 1, 2003 through April 30, 2010. The determination of whether the BOE and its 

subgrantees met the requirement for maintenance of a base level of state outlays was not 

included in our scope of work as explained above. In an email response to the draft audit report 

dated December 28, 2010, BOE officials stated that they took no exception to the findings and 

would work with the EAC to ensure that the appropriate corrective actions are implemented. The 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOE’s official response is included as Appendix A-1. 

I. HAVA Section 251 State Match 

The BOE established an election fund to hold HAVA funds in accordance with the requirements 

of HAVA Section 254. The HAVA also requires that the election fund hold the five percent state 

matching funds that enabled New York to qualify for federal HAVA Section 251 funds. 

Furthermore interest earned from the investment of the money in the election fund must also be 

deposited into the election fund. The timely deposit of the state match and of monthly interest 

earnings increases the election fund balance upon which each subsequent month’s interest 

earnings is based, resulting in a compounding effect that adds additional funds to the program. 

BOE determined that the state had a requirement to provide matching funds totaling $9,052,509 

to be eligible to receive Section 251 funds. However, the state did not deposit the matching 

funds into its election fund. The matching funds were appropriated by the state, but remained in 

the general fund until expended. The state partially met its match by requiring counties to 

contribute 5 percent of the cost of voting equipment purchased by the state on behalf of the 

counties as well as through state funded HAVA related expenditures. New York’s Office of 

General Services (OGS), the office that tracks HAVA financial activity, calculated that, as of 

April 30, 2010, the state and its counties had only expended $8,462,457 against the state 

matching requirement, resulting in a shortfall of $590,052. Further, the state did not transfer any 

interest earned on the balances in the general funds into the HAVA election fund as required. 

The state estimated that the lost interest was $1,017,958 as of April 30, 2010. 

HAVA Sec. 253(b)(5) states that: 

as a condition for receipt of funds (Requirements Payments), 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 (taking into 

account the requirements payment and the amount spent by the state) and, in the case of 

a state that uses a requirements payment as a reimbursement under section 251(c)(2), 

an additional amount equal to the amount of such reimbursement. 

HAVA Section 254(b)(1) of the HAVA 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 (the state five percent match of HAVA Section 251 funds). 

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. 

BOE officials agreed that the state had not deposited or expended its matching funds 

timely and that as a result there is a shortfall in the state match and that interest that would 

have accrued on that match has been lost. They also stated that they had notified EAC of 

the state’s plan to meet its matching requirement but had not been advised that this 

approach was inappropriate. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that the BOE: 

1.		 Deposit into the election fund the state match shortfall of $590,052, or such other amount as 

determined at the date of the transfer. 

2.		 Transfer the lost interest earnings of $1,017,958 into the election fund along with any 

additional interest that may accrue until the date of the transfer. 

BOE’s Response: 

BOE said that they take no exception to this finding and will work with EAC to ensure that 

appropriate corrective action is taken. 

II.	 Personnel Certifications 

The BOE used HAVA funds to pay salaries for employees during the periods from May 4, 2006 

through December 26, 2007 and July 23, 2009 through April 30, 2010. Between May 4, 2006 

and December 26, 2007, the BOE charged the HAVA fund $495,602 for the full salaries for 

personnel who worked on HAVA activities. These charges were not supported by semi-annual 

certifications that the employees worked only on HAVA-related activities or by other 

documentation such as timecards that showed that the employees worked on HAVA related 

activities. Beginning in 2009, BOE required HAVA funded employees to prepare timesheets 

that included information supporting that the staff worked solely on HAVA projects. BOE 

officials said that they were not aware of the requirement to prepare semi-annual certifications. 

After we advised BOE of this requirement they prepared semi-annual certifications dated June 

10 and 11, 2010, for the employees who were paid with HAVA funds between May 4, 2006 and 

December 26, 2007. 

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

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

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

that the employees worked solely on that program for the period covered by the certification. 

These certifications will be prepared at least semi-annually and will be signed by the 

employee or supervisory official having firsthand knowledge of the work performed by the 

employee. 

Recommendation: 

3.		 We recommend that the EAC resolve with the BOE the appropriate corrective action 

regarding the untimely completion of the semi-annual certifications and the lack of other 

documentation, such as time cards for the 2006 to 2007 period personnel costs were paid 

with HAVA funds. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOE’s Response: 

BOE said that they take no exception to this finding and will work with EAC to ensure that 

appropriate corrective action is taken. 

III.	 Property Records 

The inventory records for the BOE HAVA funded State voter Registration System (SVRS) 

equipment did not contain all of the elements required by the Common Rule as explained below. 

The records did not list the source of the property, who holds the title, the percentage of federal 

participation, and the condition. 

The Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State 

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

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

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

acquisition date, and costs of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the cost of 

the property, the locations, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition 

data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. 

BOE election officials informed us that they were not aware of the detailed recordkeeping 

requirements of the Common Rule. 

Recommendation: 

4.		 We recommend that the BOE ensure that the property management records for HAVA 

funded equipment list the source of the property, who holds the title, the percentage of 

federal participation, and the condition. 

BOE’s Response: 

BOE said that they take no exception to this finding and will work with EAC to ensure that 

appropriate corrective action is taken. 

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

We provided a draft of our report to the appropriate individuals of the BOE and the Commission. 

We considered any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

The draft report, including the BOE response, was provided to the Executive Director of the 

EAC for review and comment. The EAC responded on January 4, 2011, and generally agreed 

with the report’s review and recommendations. The response indicated that the EAC would 

work with the BOE to ensure appropriate corrective action. The EAC’s complete response is 

included as Appendix A-2 

CG performed its work between May 10, 2010 and May 28, 2010. 

a1

Calverton, Maryland 

June 29, 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A-1 

New York State Board of Elections Email Response to Draft Report 

The New York State Board of Elections has reviewed the Notification of Findings and 

Recommendations that were prepared by Clifton Gunderson for its audit of the State of New 

York's use of HAVA funds. We take no exception to the findings and will work with you to 

ensure that the appropriate corrective actions are implemented. 

Thank you, 

Thomas A. Jarose 

Associate Personnel Administrator 

New York State Board of Elections 

40 Steuben Street 

Albany, New York 12207 

(518)474-6336 

(518)474-1008 (fax) 

tjarose@elections.state.ny.us 
EAC RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT: 

OIG Performance Audit Report on the Administration of 

Payments Received Under the Help America Vote Act by the 

State of New York, for the Period May 1,2003 Through April 

30,2010. 

January 4, 2011 


MEMORANDUM 


To: Curtis Crider 

Inspector General 

From: Mark A. Robbins \-\~ 

\>~ 

. 

\\ . 

General Counsel 

Subject: 	 Draft Performance Audit Report - "Administration of Payments 

Received Under the Help America Vote Act by the State of New 

York". 

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

New York. 

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) generally concurs with the results of 

the review and recommendations. The EAC will work with the New York State 

Board of Elections to ensure appropriate corrective action. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B 

AUDIT METHODOLOGY 

Our audit methodology included: 

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

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

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 BOE 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 BOE’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 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, Forms SF-269 and 425, accounting for 

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

•	 Verified the establishment and maintenance of an election fund. 
 

 

 

•	 Conducted site visits of selected counties/towns to perform the following: 

� Observe equipment purchased with HAVA funds for proper accounting and 

safeguarding 

� Ensure compliance with HAVA Act. 

11
	
Appendix C 

MONETARYIMPACTAS OFAPRIL 30, 2010 


Descrie.tion 

Questioned 

Costs 

Additional Funds for 

Program 

State match shortfall $0 $ 590,052 

Lost interest on State match 0 1,017,958 

Payroll charges 495,602 0 

Totals $495,602 $1,608,010 

Note: There are also additional funds for the program from interest earnings on 

undisbursed HAVA funds held by the counties; however, the total amount due has 

not been determined. 

12 

 

 

 

OIG’s Mission 

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

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

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

enhance the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in EAC 

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

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

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

operations. Products and services include traditional financial and 

performance audits, contract and grant audits, information systems 

audits, and evaluations. 

Obtaining 

Copies of 

OIG Reports 

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

(eacoig@eac.gov). 

Mail orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

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

Fax: (202) 566-0957 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste and Abuse 

Involving the U.S. 

Election Assistance 

Commission or Help 

America Vote Act 

Funds 

By Mail: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

 1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

 Washington, DC 20005 

E-mail: eacoig@eac.gov 

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

FAX: 202-566-0957