Financial Management

Census Monitoring Board Disbursements, Internal Control Weaknesses, and Other Matters Gao ID: AIMD-00-317 September 29, 2000

The Census Monitoring Board (CMB) began operations in June 1998 to monitor the 2000 Census carried out by the Census Bureau. The CMB board consists of four members appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, referred to as the congressional CMB, and four members appointed by the President, referred to as the presidential CMB. The combined CMB disbursed about $7.4 million from June 1998 through March 31, 2000, and another $0.5 million from the congressional printing and binding appropriation. GAO found little documentation to substantiate possible improprieties that Members of Congress had raised concerns about. Among other fundings, no presidential CMB funds were used to print reports for the 1998 World Exposition and no evidence existed that former congressional CMB employees accessed protected census data. However, GAO did find a pattern of significant CMB internal control weaknesses related to travel, personnel, and the procurement of services, which sometimes resulted in inappropriate and wasteful practices.

GAO noted that: (1) it found little documented evidence to substantiate possible improprieties in connection with seven specific matters identified in congressional request letters: (a) no presidential CMB funds were used to print reports for the 1998 World Exposition; (b) congressional CMB videotapes did not have a narrow political distribution; (c) no CMB funds were used for political travel; (d) presidential CMB contracts for studies on census undercounting were not improperly procured; (e) no evidence existed that former congressional CMB employees accessed protected census data; (f) two out of 27 questions in a congressional CMB contractor focus group study made some mention of political parties; and (g) some verbal confrontation occurred between a congressional CMB contractor and Bureau of the Census employees, and the contract was terminated shortly thereafter for a variety of reasons; (2) GAO's remaining efforts focused on CMB support for expenditures and an assessment of the internal control environment established to ensure disciplined financial operations; (3) the majority of CMB disbursements were generally supported and related to official business; (4) however, GAO found a pattern of significant CMB internal control weaknesses related to travel, personnel, and the procurement of services, some of which resulted in inappropriate and wasteful practices; (5) weak internal controls allowed unreconciled payroll, benefits, and annual leave accounts, weak contract accounting, and disbursements without required approvals to pay; (6) some CMB policies were inconsistent with federal law; (7) while weaknesses related to travel, personnel, and procurement existed for both sides, the congressional and presidential CMB operated in substantially different internal control environments; (8) the congressional CMB made a considerable effort to establish an internal control environment; (9) the presidential CMB operations were primarily characterized by weak or unenforced policies, oral authorizations, and poor records management, largely due to a lack of administrative leadership; (10) GAO identified transactions involving prior business relationships among CMB officials, including employer/employee or contractor affiliations; (11) GAO found 13 congressional and 11 presidential CMB related-party relationships involving about $1 million in salaries and contracts for each side; and (12) GAO's disclosure of related-party relationships and transactions does not imply any improprieties.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.