John G. Gard
Speaker of the Assembly
__________________
April 11, 2005
The Honorable James E. Doyle
Governor
Room 115 East
State Capitol Building
Madison, Wisconsin 53708
Dear Governor Doyle:
I am pleased to announce my appointment of Representatives Don Friske and Jeff Mursau to the Governor's Council on Forestry.
Sincerely,
John G. Gard
Speaker of the Assembly
__________________
April 11, 2005
The Honorable James E. Doyle
Governor
Room 115 East
State Capitol Building
Madison, Wisconsin 53708
Dear Governor Doyle:
Please be advised that I am reappointing Representative Mark Pettis to the Governor's Council on Tourism.
Sincerely,
John G. Gard
Speaker of the Assembly
__________________
Mr. Thomas Fletemeyer
Executive Director, Educational Communications Board
Wisconsin Public Broadcasting
3319 West Beltline Highway
Madison, Wisconsin 53713
Dear Mr. Fletemeyer:
Please be advised that, pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute Section
15.57 (4), I am reappointing Representative Ann Nischke to serve on the Educational Communications Board.
Sincerely,
John G. Gard
Speaker of the Assembly
__________________
Agency Reports
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
March 31, 2005
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed our financial and compliance audit of the State of Wisconsin, as requested by state agencies to meet the audit requirements of the federal Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and the provisions of federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. Our audit covered the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. In addition to satisfying federal audit requirements, the audit assists us in meeting state audit requirements under s.
13.94, Wis. Stats.
Audit procedures performed at the larger state agencies that administer federal financial assistance programs, including the University of Wisconsin System, consisted of assessing the propriety of revenues and expenditures and of testing internal controls and compliance with laws and regulations related to the administration of federal grant programs. For the smaller agencies and selected University of Wisconsin campuses, our audit procedures were limited to verifying information included in the federally required State of Wisconsin Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and following up on prior-year audit findings. Our audit focused on the 27 federal grants that either exceeded the $25.2 million threshold used to define major grants or were below this threshold but were selected for review based on the risk-based assessment criteria established by the federal government.
Our report contains the auditor's reports on compliance and internal control and our unqualified audit opinion on the State of Wisconsin Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. The agency narratives contain our comments on internal control deficiencies related to the administration of federal grants, findings of noncompliance for each agency, and the results of our follow-up to prior audit findings. A summary schedule of findings and questioned costs for the current year's audit is also provided, as well as a summary of the status of findings included in our prior audit report for the State of Wisconsin (report 04-2). We note that, overall, state agencies have complied with federal grant requirements and have taken steps to address findings included in the prior-year's single audit report. However, we report internal control deficiencies and several areas of noncompliance, and we identify $237,797 in questioned costs. This amount represents a small portion of the $9.3 billion in federal financial assistance administered by the State of Wisconsin.
The federal government will resolve the findings and questioned costs included in our report. Federal agencies are expected to contact state agencies regarding resolution. To assist federal officials in their efforts, state agency contact information is provided in appendices to this report.
In addition to the comments and recommendations included in our report, separate audit communications either have been or will be issued addressing internal control issues and noncompliance with state statutes related to certain accounting transfers and expenditures.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by agency staff during our audit. Agencies' comments on individual findings, along with their corrective action plans to address our concerns, are included within the agency narratives.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
April 12, 2005
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed audit work at the Department of Financial Institutions to meet our audit requirements under s.
13.94, Wis. Stats. The primary focus of our audit was to review the Department's fiscal operations and related activities to assess whether they are effectively managed, well-controlled, and in compliance with statutory requirements. The Department is responsible for regulating state-chartered financial institutions, the securities industry, and other financial service providers. In addition, it maintains corporate and Uniform Commercial Code filings, investigates consumer complaints related to credit transactions, and provides consumer financial education.
The Department is funded primarily through program revenue derived from fees and assessments paid by regulated entities and individuals. In recent years, it also was awarded almost $7.7 million in settlements as the result of nationwide actions against brokerage firms. In the past five fiscal years, over $128.3 million of the Department's program revenue has been transferred or lapsed to the General Fund.
A198
Overall, we found the Department has adequate fiscal management practices in place. However, we identified several areas in which it could further improve internal controls and fiscal processes, including the efficiency and controls of its receipts processing, password security, access to the State's central payroll system, and physical inventories of capital assets. The Department agrees with the recommended improvements and has identified its plans to implement our recommendations. Its responses have been incorporated into this letter.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the Department's staff during our audit.
Sincerely,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
April 12, 2005
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed audit work at the Office of the State Public Defender to meet our audit requirements under s.
13.94, Wis. Stats. We reviewed the Office's fiscal operations and related activities to assess whether they are effectively managed, well-controlled, and in compliance with statutory requirements. The Office is responsible for providing legal representation that is constitutionally guaranteed for defendants who are unable to afford private attorneys. In fiscal year (FY) 2003-04, it provided legal services to almost 145,000 indigent clients through staff attorneys who are directly employed by the Office and private attorneys who are paid on an hourly basis through fixed-fee contracts.
The Office is funded primarily through general purpose revenue, although it receives some program revenue from the indigent clients it serves and through sponsorship of training conferences. In FY 2003-04, it had 527.5 full-time equivalent employees in 38 locations statewide, and its expenditures totaled $79.9 million.
Over the past five years, the Office's expenditures for private attorneys increased 44.1 percent. Such increases present continuing budgeting challenges for the State. Currently, the invoices that private attorneys and investigators submit during the final quarter of a biennium are not funded until the next budget period, which delays payment for up to three months after they are submitted. This budget practice has been in place for many years, but warrants careful review to ensure it is in compliance with established budget provisions. We also identified several areas in which the Office could improve internal controls and fiscal processes, including private attorney certifications, employee travel reimbursements, fixed assets, and password security. The Office agrees with the recommended improvements and has identified its plans to implement our recommendations. Its responses have been incorporated into this letter.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by Office staff during our audit.
Sincerely,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
April 19, 2005
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, we have completed a review of the physician office visit data (POVD) program administered by the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS). Chapter
153, Wis. Stats., directs DHFS to collect, analyze, and disseminate certain types of health care information. The POVD program is intended to provide a centralized, statewide source of information for outpatient health care services delivered in physician offices.
The program is funded by fees levied on physicians who are licensed and practicing in Wisconsin. Since fiscal year (FY) 1999-2000, DHFS has spent more than $2.9 million to administer the POVD program and related projects. It is authorized 12.28 full-time equivalent positions for all health care data collection activities, but only 6.2 full-time equivalent DHFS staff worked on physician-related projects, including the POVD program, in FY 2003-04.
We found numerous problems with the program, including serious concerns with the quality, comparability, and comprehensiveness of the data. For example, there are inconsistencies in reported charges, service delivery locations, and types of services being provided. Further, DHFS is collecting information from 13 medical practice groups, representing only 30.9 percent of Wisconsin physicians, and has released data only for 2003. The data it has released have been of limited usefulness to researchers and health care professionals, although this results in part from statutory and other restrictions on data release. DHFS has yet to produce information that is usable by the general public.
In 2005 Assembly Bill 100, the Governor has proposed creating a new Health Care Quality and Patient Safety Board in October 2005. The proposed Board would be responsible for recommending changes to the POVD program, with the goal of replacing it with a new health care information system by July 2007. As it debates the Governor's proposal, the Legislature may wish to direct DHFS to address concerns with the POVD program; alternatively, the Legislature may choose to eliminate the program immediately.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by DHFS staff as we conducted this review.
Sincerely,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
