COMPLIANCE AND CONTROL AUDIT REPORT

Transcription

1 COMPLIANCE AND CONTROL AUDIT REPORT LEGISLATURE LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE REVISOR OF STATUTES LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT OBTAINING AUDIT INFORMATION This audit was conducted by Randy Tongier, Financial-Compliance Audit Manager, and Roy Fitzpatrick, Auditor, of the Division's staff. If you need any additional information about the audit's findings, please contact Mr. Tongier at the Division's offices.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS LEG ISLA TURE LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE REVISOR OF STATUTES LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT Background....3 Did the Legislature, Legislative Research Department, Office Of the Revisor of Statutes, and Legislative Division of Post Audit Comply With Legal and Procedural Requirements Applicable To Their Receipts, and Provide Adequate Internal Control Over Receipts?....9 Recorrunendation Did the Legislative Coordinating Council and the Legislative Educational Planning Committee Compy With Legal and Procedural Requirements Applicable to Their Expenditures? Follow Up of Prior Audit Findings and Recommendations APPENDIX A: Agency Responses... 13

3 LEGISLATURE LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE REVISOR OF STATUTES LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT Summary of Legislative Post Audit's Findings The Legislative Division of Post Audit conducted compliance and control audit work at the Legislature, Legislative Coordinating Council, Legislative Educational Planning Committee, Legislative Research Department, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and Legislative Division of Post Audit in partial fulfillment of the Legislative Post Audit Act's requirement that audit work be conducted at each State agency at least once every three years. This compliance and control audit addressed the areas of receipts and, when an agency had no receipts, expenditures. In addition, the audit followed up on prior audit findings and recommendations. The period covered by this audit was the fiscal year ended June 30, Did the Legislature, Legislative Research Department, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and Legislative Division of Post Audit comply with legal and procedural requirement applicable to their receipts, and provide adequate internal control over receipts? The agencies' procedures for handling receipts were in accordance with legal and procedural requirements and generally provided adequate controls over receipts, with one exception. That exception related to the timely deposit of receipts. The Office of Legislative Administrative Services did not deposit the Legislature's receipts as often as required by State law. Did the Legislative Coordinating Council and the Legislative Educational Planning Committee comply with legal and procedural requirements applicable to their expenditures? Procedures of the Legislative Coordinating Council and the Legislative Educational Planning Committee for handling expenditures were in accordance with legal and procedural requirements and provided adequate controls over expenditures. The prior audit had addressed one audit recommendation to the Legislature, and one audit recommendation to the Legislative Coordinating Council. These agencies have implemented those prior audit recommendations. The report recommends that the Office of Legislative Administrative Services either ensure that receipts are deposited in the State Treasury when cash and checks on hand exceed $200, or request the Pooled Money Investment Board to grant it an exemption from that requirement. We would be happy to discuss these recommendations or any other items in the report with legislative committees, individual legislators, or other State officials. WnLJ-~ ~ Meredith Williams Legislative Post Auditor

4

5 LEGISLATURE LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE EDUCATIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE REVISOR OF STATUTES LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF POST AUDIT The Legislative Post Audit Act requires that an annual financial statement audit be conducted of the State's general purpose financial statements. The Act also requires that audit work" be conducted at each State agency at least once every three years. Audit work conducted as part of the annual financial statement audit partially fulfills the latter requirement. Also in partial fulfillment of that requirement, the Legislative Division of Post Audit has conducted compliance and control audit work at the Legislature, the Legislative Coordinating Council, the Legislative Educational Planning Committee, the Legislative Research Department, the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and the Legislative Division of Post Audit, covering the fiscal year ended June 30, To avoid duplication of audit work conducted as part of the annual, Statewide audit, our audit work focused on areas not covered by the Statewide audit. These areas usually include receipts and locally administered funds, although the five agencies covered by this report had no locally administered funds. In addition, because the Legislative Coordinating Council and the Legislative Educational Planning Committee had no receipts, we reviewed expenditures by these agencies. Finally, we followed up on any prior audit findings and recommendations. The audit addresses the following specific questions: 1. Did the Legislature, the Legislative Research Department; the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and the Legislative Division of Post Audit comply with legal and procedural requirements applicable to their receipts, and provide adequate internal control over receipts? 2. Did the Legislative Coordinating Council and the Legislative Educational Planning Committee comply with legal and procedural requirements applicable to their expenditures? We identified the legal and procedural requirements applicable to the audited agencies' receipts and expenditures by reviewing relevant statutes, administrative regulations, and sections of the Division of Accounts and Reports' Policy and Procedure Manual. We also interviewed agency personnel, reviewed written procedures, and examined related supporting documents to identify the agencies' procedures for handling receipts and expenditures. We then compared those procedures with the applicable legal and procedural requirements. In addition, we identified the potential for loss or misuse of receipts, and we evaluated the level of control provided by the agencies' procedures in preventing and detecting loss or misuse of those receipts. Fi- 1.

6 nally, we performed analytical tests of receipts and expenditures, reviewed accounting records, and tested a sample of transactions at each agency. In conducting this audit work, we followed all applicable generally accepted government auditing standards set forth by the U.S. General Accounting Office, except for the standard regarding independence. That standard states that the audit organization and the individual auditors should be free from impairments to independence, organizationally independent, and maintain an independent attitude and appearance. The reasons for our inability to adhere to this standard in this audit are discussed below. o The independence standard states that the individual auditors should be free from impairments to independence. Because the auditors involved in this work are employees of the Legislative Division of Post Audit, which is one of the audited agencies, we could not adhere to this part of the standard. o The independence standard states that the audit organization should be organizationally independent. However, in this case all of the agencies audited are within the same branch of government as the audit organization. Further, the Legislative Post Audit Committee, a committee of one of the audited agencies, directs the activities of the Division. Finally, one of the audited agencies is the audit organization itself. Each of the above situations prevented us from adhering to the independence standard. o The independence standard states that the audit organization and the individual auditors should maintain an independent attitude and appearance. While the Division and its auditors made every effort to provide for and maintain an independent attitude, it would be impossible under the circumstances to maintain an appearance of independence. To the best of our knowledge, our lack of adherence to the independence standard affects neither the audit conclusions reached nor the manner in which they are presented. 2.

7 Background This audit report covers six State agencies - the Legislature, the Legislative Coordinating Council, the Legislative Educational Planning Committee, the Legislative Research Department, the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and the Legislative Division of Post Audit. The operations of each agency are briefly described below. Legislature The Legislature operates under the authority of Article Two of the Kansas Constitution, which gives the legislative power of the State to a House of Representatives of up to 125 members and a Senate of up to 40 members. Legislation enacted by the House and Senate takes the form of bills and concurrent resolutions. This legislation is govemed by only one requirement, that it be consistent with the United States and Kansas Constitutions. The operations of the Legislature are funded by appropriations from the State General Fund. Sources and uses of funds for fiscal year 1989 are presented below. Legislature Sources and Uses of Funds Fiscal Year 1989 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE SOURCES OF FUNDS: Appropriations from the State General Fund USES OF FUNDS: Salaries and Wages $ 4,298,078 Contractual Services 2,912,651 Commodities 102,731 Capital Outlay 219,702 Claims 12,175 Non-Operating Uses of Funds 32,203 Total Uses of Funds SPENDING AUTHORITY LAPSED ENDING CASH BALANCE $ 546,800 7,928,304 7,577, ,939 $ 575,625 Legislative Coordinating Council The Legislative Coordinating Council, established by the 1971 Legislature to succeed the Legislative Council, is responsible for the coordination of legislative services. The Council consists of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the 3.

8 House, the Speaker Pro Tempore of the House, and the Majority and Minority leaders of each chamber. The Coordinating Council performs the following major activities: o Receives and assigns subjects for legislative committee study o Appoints the Revisor of Statutes, the Director of the Legislative Research Department, and the Director of Legislative Administrative Services. In addition, the Council generally supervises the operations of the offices of these appointees. o Assigns and provides for maintenance of the legislative offices in the Statehouse The Division of Legislative Administrative Services is funded through the Legislative Coordinating Council. This Division acts as a central contact point for people wanting legislative information, maintains files of committee meeting minutes, and mails notices of interim committee meetings. This Division also keeps accounting records for the Legislature and the Coordinating Council. The operations of the Legislative Coordinating Council are funded by appropriations from the State General Fund. Sources and uses of funds for fiscal year 1989 are presented below. Legislative Coordinating Council Sources and Uses of Funds Fiscal Year 1989 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE SOURCES OF FUNDS: Appropriations from the State General Fund USES OF FUNDS: Salaries and Wages Contractual Services Total Uses of Funds ENDING CASH BALANCE $ 247,996 1,038 $ 49, , ,034 $ 97,995 Legislative Educational Planning Committee The Legislative Educational Planning Committee was established by the 1974 Legislature to provide centralized legislative planning for post-secondary education in Kansas. The 1985 Legislature granted the Committee specific authority to introduce legislation it considers necessary to perform its statutory duties. In addition, the Committee has been identified in the federal-state relationship agreement under Title I of the Higher Education Act as the State entity responsible for a comprehensive planning system for post-secondary education. The Committee's members are appointed by the Legislative Coordinating Council. The members comprise six representatives and five senators, with at least five members being of the minority party. 4.

9 The operations of the Legislative Educational Planning Committee are funded by appropriations from the State General Fund. Sources and uses of funds for fiscal year 1989 are presented below. Legislative Educational Planning Committee Sources and Uses of Funds Fiscal Year 1989 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE SOURCES OF FUNDS: Appropriations from the State General Fund USES OF FUNDS: Salaries and Wages $ 8,096 Contractual Services 27,731 Commodities 1,534 Capital Outlay 1,955 Total Uses of Funds SPENDING AUTHORITY LAPSED ENDING CASH BALANCE $ 27,104 28,799 39, $ 16,572 Legislative Research Department The Legislative Research Department was established by the 1971 Legislature to succeed the Research Department created in The Department operates under the supervision of the Legislative Coordinating Council. Its activities include: o Providing research services and staff for interim, select, special, and standing committees o Reviewing agency budgets and fiscal notes, preparing revenue estimates, and preparing an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this work The operations of the Legislative Research Department are funded by appropriations from the State General Fund. Sources and uses of funds for fiscal year 1989 are presented on the next page. 5.

10 Legislative Research Department Sources and Uses of Funds Fiscal Year 1989 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE SOURCES OF FUNDS: Appropriations from the State General Fund USES OF FUNDS: Salaries and Wages Fees for Professional Services Commodities Capital Outlay Total Uses of Funds SPENDING AUTHORITY LAPSED ENDING CASH BALANCES $ 1,388,552 64,660 11,741 42,872 $ 156,587 1,502,158 1,507, $ 150,782 Office of the Revisor of Statutes The Office of the Revisor of Statutes operates under the direction of the Legislative Coordinating Council. The Office is directed by statute to perform the following: o Draft bills, resolutions, and other legislative documents o Recommend bills to clarify or update existing laws o Maintain a comprehensive computerized legislative information system involving bill status and bill typing o Provide legal research services for all legislators and the Legislative Coordinating Council The operations of the Office of the Revisor of Statutes are funded by appropriations from the State General Fund. Sources and uses of funds for fiscal year 1989 are presented below. Office of the Revisor of Statutes Sources and Uses of Funds Fiscal Year 1989 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE SOURCES OF FUNDS: Appropriations from the State General Fund $ 295,544 1,847,430 6.

11 USES OF FUNDS: Salaries and Wages Fees for Professional Services Commodities Capital Outlay Total Uses of Fu nds SPENDING AUTHORITY LAPSED ENDING CASH BALANCES $ 1,082, ,264 5,277 1,890 1,759,359 7,102 $ 376,513 Legislative Division of Post Audit The Legislative Division of Post Audit, established by the 1971 Legislature, reports to and operates under the direction of the Legislative Post Audit Committee. This Committee comprises five senators and five representatives. Of the Senate members, three are appointed by the President of the Senate and two are appointed by the Senate Minority Leader. Of the representatives, three are appointed by the Speaker of the House and two are appointed by the house Minority Leader. Under the direction of the Legislative Post Audit Committee, the Division is responsible for the following major types of audit work: o a wide variety of performance audits, generally of specific State agencies or programs o an annual, Statewide single audit of the State's general purpose financial statements. This audit, which also meets federal audit requirements, is contracted out to a certified public accounting firm o specific financial-compliance audits as required by State law. This work is also contracted out to certified public accounting firms o reviews of State agencies' compliance with legal requirements and internal controls that, together with the contracted financial-compliance audit work, ensure an audit presence in every State agency at least once every three years Operations of the Legislative Division of Post Audit are funded primarily by appropriations from the State General Fund. Additional funding for the federal share of audit costs is provided by transfers from the applicable State agencies. Sources and uses of funds for fiscal year 1989 are presented on the next page. 7.

12 Legislative Division of Post Audit Sources and Uses of Funds Fiscal Year 1989 BEGINNING CASH BALANCES SOURCES OF FUNDS: Appropriations from the State General Fund Transfers from Other State Agencies Total Sources of Funds USES OF FUNDS: Salaries and Wages Contractual Services Commodities Capital Outlay Refunds Total Uses of Funds SPENDING AUTHORITY LAPSED ENDING CASH BALANCES $ 1,246,763 91,881 $ 840, ,193 6,881 46,305 4,449 $ 361,087 1,338,644 1,535,283 3,128 $ 161,320 8.

13 Did the Legislature, Legislative Research Department, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and Legislative Division of Post Audit Comply With Legal and Procedural Requirements Applicable to Their Receipts, and Provide Adequate Internal Control Over Receipts? For fiscal year 1989, our review showed that these agencies complied with legal and procedural requirements applicable to receipts, except that the Legislature did not deposit receipts in the State Treasury on a timely basis. In addition, its procedures provided adequate internal control over receipts. Our conclusions were based on the following. With One Exception, the Agencies Complied With Applicable Requirements And Provided Adequate Controls Although the Legislative Division of Post Audit was the only agency with receipts deposited into its own fund during fiscal year 1989, the Legislature, Legislative Research Department, Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and Division of Post Audit also collected receipts for deposit into the State General Fund. Receipts collected by the Legislature are handled by the Office of Legislative Administrative Services. General Fund receipts are summarized below: General Fund Receipts Fiscal Year 1989 Legislature Charges for Clerical Services and Copies Sale of Publications and Printed Materials Recovery of Expenditures Legislative Research Department Recovery of Expenditures Office of the Revisor of Statutes Recovery of Expenditures Legislative Division of Post Audit Recovery of Expenditures $ 31, , In the area of receipts, we identified the agencies' procedures for handling receipts, determined whether those procedures met applicable legal requirements, evaluated the internal controls provided by those procedures, and tested a sample of transactions, records, and reports to determine whether the applicable procedures had been followed. In particular, we determined whether: 9.

14 o amounts due the agencies were properly assessed and collected o amounts collected by the agencies were deposited in the State Treasury on a timely basis o the agencies' receipts procedures provided adequate controls to limit to an acceptable level the risk of loss or misuse of receipts and the risk of noncompliance with legal and procedural requirements With the exception discussed in the following section, we found that amounts due were assessed and collected, amounts collected were deposited on a timely basis, and agency procedures provided adequate controls. The Office of Legislative Administrative Services Did Not Deposit Receipts As Often As Required by State Law State law requires State agencies such as those covered by this audit to deposit receipts in the State Treasury on a daily basis, unless the Pooled Money Investment Board grants an exemption to that requirement. In testing for compliance with this requirement, we found that the Office of Legislative Administrative Services did not deposit the Legislature's receipts as frequently as required. Under the requirements in effect during the audit period, the Legislature was required to deposit receipts in the State Treasury when cash and checks on hand exceeded $200, but not less often than monthly. During the two periods we selected for testing, the Legislature should have made 12 deposits to meet the requirement, three in one test period and nine in the other. However, the agency actually made only two remittances, one in each period. Timely deposit of receipts not only achieves compliance with legal requirements, but it also reduces the risk of loss or misuse because moneys in the State Treasury are more secure than moneys on hand at a State agency's offices. In addition, while moneys are on hand at an agency's office, the State loses the interest it could be earning from investing these moneys. Although information was not available to allow us to estimate the loss, it appears that the amount of interest lost was very small. However, even this loss could have been avoided. Recommendation The Office of Legislative Administrative Services should either take steps to ensure that receipts are deposited in the State Treasury when cash and checks on hand exceed $200, or request the Pooled Money Investment Board to grant it an exemption to that requirement. 10.

15 Did the Legislative Coordinating Council and the Legislative Educational Planning Committee Comply With Legal and Procedural Requirements Applicable to Their Expenditures? For fiscal year 1989, we concluded that the Legislative Coordinating Council and the Legislative Educational Planning Committee complied with legal and procedural requirements applicable to their expenditures. Our conclusion was based on the following. We compared fiscal year 1989 expenditure levels to those of fiscal year 1988, and investigated any significant variances. We identified the legal and procedural requirements applicable to the agencies' expenditures by reviewing relevant statutes, administrative regulations, and sections of the Division of Accounts and Reports Policy and Procedure Manual. Finally, we examined a sample of non-payroll expenditure vouchers together with their supporting documentation and determined whether the expenditures were made in accordance with the applicable requirements. In particular, we determined that: o amounts paid for travel expenses were in accordance with applicable legal requirements o out-of-state travel was authorized in accordance with K.S.A o payments were made in accordance with the guidelines of the Division of Purchases 11.

16 Follow Up of Prior Audit Findings and Recommendations As part of this audit, we followed up on prior audit findings and related recommendations. The prior audit report made two audit recommendations - one to the Legislature and one to the Legislative Coordinating Council. Our review indicated that both prior audit recommendations had been implemented. Legislature The prior audit noted that the Legislature had charged one voucher to its General Fund appropriation which should have been charged to a National Conference of State Legislatures' grant. The audit recommended that the Legislature correct this error. We found that this recommendation had been implemented. Legislative Coordinating Council The prior audit recommended that the Legislative Coordinating Council ensure that all significant outstanding obligations be recorded in the accounting records as encumbrances. We found that this recommendation had been implemented. Legislative Educational Planning Committee T egislative Research Department Office of the Revisor of Statutes Legislative Division of Post Audit The above agencies had no prior audit findings and recommendations. 12.

17 APPENDIX A Agency Response On September 27, 1990, we provided a copy of the draft audit report to the Office of Legislative Administrative Services (for the Legislature and Legislative Coordinating Council), the Legislative Research Department (for the Department and the Legislative Educational Planning Committee), the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and the Legislative Division of Post Audit. Their responses are included in this Appendix. 13.

18 KAI~SAS LEGISLATURE Room 511-5, Statehouse Topeka, Kansas Phone: (913) Division of ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES EMIL LUTZ Director MEMORANDUM TO FROM: DATE: RE: Meredith Williams Legislative Post Audit 109 W 9 BUILDING MAIL Emil Lutz ~t October 22, 1990 Compliance and Control Audit Report of Lee for FY 1989 The auditor correctly determined that our office had not deposited receipts according to guidelines that were in effect at that time. The individual responsible for this duty was not in the position when the guidelines were placed into effect and was not properly trained/briefed when she assumed the position. The guidelines in effect at the time of the audit required deposit of receipts when cash and checks exceeded $200 but not less than monthly. Since one document mailing subscription alone is $175, the guidelines were restrictive when several subscriptions would arrive in one day. As recommended by your agency, on June 11, 1990, we requested a broader exemption (see attached letter) and on June 19 we received the attached letter from the Pooled Money Investment Board which allows for an accumulation of $2,000 or a deposit every 10 working days, whichever occurs first. This office is currently following the new guidelines. If there are any questions, please contact this office. EL:pp 14.

19 BOARD MEMBERS Joan Finney. Chairman Clayton C. McMurray Harland E. Priddle June 19, 1990 STATE OF KANSAS ' - ~ :-.",... ~,. ~ ~ POOLED MONEY INVESTMENT BOARD Landon State Office Building 900 S.W. Jackson Street Suite 304-N Topeka, KS (913) n Executive O:ticer Lyell D. Ocobock Mr. Emil Lutz, Director Legislative Administrative Services Room 511-S, Statehouse Topeka, Ks Dear Mr. Lutz: After visiting with you and Roy Fitzpatrick of Legislative Post Audit, this is to advise you that the minimum policy established by the board regarding frequency of deposits provides that deposits to the State Treasurer are to be made when an agency has accumulated at least $2, or it has been ten working days since the last deposit, whichever occurs first. In response to your request and due to the nature and volume of your cash flow, we would suggest that your deposits be made in accordance with the above policy, that is, when you have accumulated at least $2, or it has been ten working days since your last deposit, whichever occurs first. We trust this procedure will provide your office greater flexibility in conducting your operation. If you have any questions, please advise. Sincerely, ~ c&!!~o~k Executive Officer LDO:mb 15.

20 KANSAS LEGISLATURE Room 511-5, StatehOuSe Topeka, Kansas Phone: (913) DiViSiOf!~E COpy ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES EMIL LUTZ Director MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Pooled Money Investment Board Room 304 Landon State Office Building BUILDING MAIL Emil LUtz~ Legislative Administrative Services June 11, 1990 RE: A post audit review of deposit of receipts for Legislative Administrative Services was completed on June 7, The auditor recommended that consideration be given to requesting more flexible guidelines for our agency. A lettei of exception from daily deposits was written on October 6, 1980 (See Attached) which provided for deposits on a monthly basis and/or when cash on hand exceeds $20.00 and/or the cumulative amount of receipts (cash plus checks) exceeds $ During the period of September through February, our receipts are irregular and in large amounts. We vary from zero to over several thousand dollars in checks due to selling of subscription mailing for the legislative document room. One subscription is $175. Outside of the activity associated with a legislative session, there are times we have less than $200 a month in receipts. This is to request guidelines that would still be a minimum of monthly deposits but to require deposits when cash on hand exceeds $ and/or the cumulative amount of receipts (cash plus checks) exceeds $2,000. This would provide our office greater flexibility in conducting our operation and still not permit a large amount to accumulate. We request your consideration and approval. If you have any questions, please contact our office. EL:pp Enclosure 16.

21 D i'/ He C 0 un t s ~ I< e p 0 1- t s STAlE OF KANSA$ JOHN CA~LIN Governor JAMES R COBLER Director of AcCOUt1t$ and Reports DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF ACCOUNTS ANO REPOATS October 6, 1980 State OllieI'! ~tlildi('\g Topeka, KanSRS (913) \ Mr. William R. Bachman Legislative Coordinating Council State House, 3rd Floor Topeka, Kansas Dear Mr. Bachman: In response to your request for authorization to deposit accumulated collections under $20.00 on a monthly basis, we have reviewed four months' deposits and interviewed personnel of your agency. OUT study rev~aled that your average monthly deposit is $1, Our on-site review indicates that you have established adequate controls and reconciliation procedures for receipts. The only area that we would make a recommendation in is the security of the deposit. Currently, the deposit is placed in building mail and delivered to the State Treasurer by unbonded mail personnel. We recommend that someono from the agency deliver the deposit to the Treasurer, as is the practice of most Topeka-based agencies. In view of this, I will approve deposit of reeeipls when cash on hand exceeds $20.00 and/or the cumulative amount of receipts (cash plus checks) exceeds $200.00, but not less frequently than monthly. All receipts should be deposited intact. If you have any questions about this approval, please contact this office. JRC; PLI: emk F~' James R. Cobler, Director Division of Accounts and Reports ee: Harold Gibbon 17.

22 STATE OF KANSAS RICHARD W. RYAN, DIRECTOR BEN F. BARRETT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR EDMUND G. AHRENS, CHIEF FISCAL ANALYST STAFF- LEGISLATIVE COO RDINATING CO UN CI L INTERIM COMMITTEES STANDING COMMITTEES LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES THE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT ROOM 545 -N. STATEHOUSE PHONE : ( 913 ) TOPEKA, KANSAS September 28, 1990 Meridith Williams Legislative Post Auditor 109 West 9th (Mills Bldg.) Suite 301 BUILDING MAIL Dear Meridith: I have no comments with respect to the draft copy of the audit report on legislative branch agencies you sent to me on September 27, RWR/bd Sincerely yours, ffl~ Richard W. Ryan, Director 18.

23 NORMAN J. FURSE, ATTORNEY REVISOR OF STATUTES ARDEN K. ENSLEY. ATTORNEY FIRST ASSISTANT REVISOR JAMES A. WILSON III. ATTORNEY SENIOR ASSISTANT REVISOR ASSISTANT REVISORS AVIS A. SWARTZMA N, ATTORNEY DON S. HAYWARD, ATTORNEY MARY ANN TORRENCE. ATTORNEY WILLIAM L. EDDS, ATTORNEY BRUCE W. KINZIE. ATTORNEY THERESA M. KIERNAN. ATTORNEY GORDON L. SELF, ATTORNEY J ILL A. WOLTERS, ATTORNEY COMPUTER INFORMATION STAFF MARY O. CHENG. M.S RICHARD M. CHAMPNEY. B.S. OFFICE OF REVISOR OF STATU TES STATE HOUSE. THIRD FLOOR TOPEKA, KANSAS LEGAL CONSULTATION- LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES AND LEGISLATORS LEGISLATIVE BILL DRAFTING SECRET ARY- LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL SECRETARY- KANSAS COMMISSION ON INTERSTATE COOPERATION KANSAS STATUTES ANNOTATED EDITING AND PUBLICATION LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SYSTEM (913) Octobe r la, 1990 Mr. Meredith Williams Legislative Post Audit 109 West 9th, Suite 301 Mills Building Topeka, Kansas : i - E~I S la TIVf POST AUDlT1 Dear Meredith, I appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to the draft audit report on the Kansas Legislature and Related Agencies for fiscal year Based on my review, I have no corrections, additions or clarifications to the material dealing with the Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Sincerely, NJF/sma Norman J. Furse Revisor of Statutes 19.

24 109 W EST 9TH, SUI TE 301 MILLS BU I LD ING TO P EKA, K AN SAS (9 1 3 ) October 4, 1990 Randy W. Tongier Financial-Compliance Audit Manager Legislative Division of Post Audit 301 Mills Building Topeka, Kansas Dear Randy: I appreciate the opportunity to review the draft copy of the compliance and control audit report covering the fiscal year 1989 activities of the Legislative Division of Post Audit. Based on my review, I have no corrections, additions, or clarifications to the material dealing with the Division. As always, I appreciate the courteous and expeditious manner in which Roy Fitzpatrick conducted this audit. Sincerely, L~Q fl Meredith Williams Legislative Post Auditor 20.