2006 5001 16S Official Year End Closing And Opening Instructions For Encumbrance Advance Fund Management 5391 01 2006500116s

User Manual: 5391-01

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 24

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
AUDITOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE, ROOM 1819
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108

A. JOSEPH DeNUCCI

TEL. (617) 727-6200

AUDITOR

NO. 2006-5001-16S
INDEPENDENT STATE AUDITOR’S REPORT
ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE WITH
THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER'S
OFFICIAL YEAR-END CLOSING AND OPENING
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENCUMBRANCE AND
ADVANCE FUND MANAGEMENT
FISCAL YEAR 2006

OFFICIAL AUDIT
REPORT
APRIL 10, 2007

2006-5001-16S

TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION

1

Our review evaluated state agency compliance with the Office of the State Comptroller’s
(OSC’s) FY2006 Closing and FY2007 Opening Instructions. The purpose of our audit was
to determine (1) agency compliance with the OSC’s policy that the June 30, 2006 deadline
for encumbrances and the receipt of goods and services be observed, (2) whether
management decisions to encumber fiscal year 2006 funds for accounts payable had been
based on detailed and meaningful analyses to support or represent exact requirements, and
(3) whether fiscal year 2006 advance funds were accounted for before opening fiscal year
2007 advances and accounting was performed through documentation of the expenditure of
the advances (EA) or cash repayment of any remaining balance by processing an advance
refund (AR), or whether Dynacash advances were accounted for in accordance with OSC’s
emergency payroll Dynacash account closing procedures.
To determine compliance with the June 30 receipt of goods and services requirement and to
evaluate evidence of management’s detailed and meaningful analyses of encumbrance needs,
we identified 134,992 encumbrances, totaling $2,734,462,867.49, outstanding as of June 30,
2006. We then examined 250 encumbrance transactions, totaling $5,124,205.85, from
among the 3,164 encumbrances (totaling $542,084,490.56) that were entered into the
Commonwealth’s accounting system in the period June 19, 2006 to June 30, 2006, the final
two weeks of fiscal year 2006. We also reviewed 25 late encumbrance transactions, totaling
$2,897,065.82 that the OSC entered into the Commonwealth’s accounting system after June
30, 2006 on behalf of various state agencies. Furthermore, we reviewed 50 encumbrance
transactions, totaling $2,270,329.93, consisting of open encumbrances as of June 30, 2006.
We performed these tests to evaluate evidence of management’s detailed and meaningful
analyses of encumbrance needs and agency compliance with the OSC’s FY2006 Closing and
FY2007 Opening Instructions, Section 6, Contracts, and Section 8, Accounts Payable
Management. Our review determined that compliance with these instructions was high: 321
of 325 encumbrance transactions tested, or 99%, were in compliance with the closing
instructions for encumbrances as of June 30, 2006.
To determine compliance with Section 8 of the OSC’s FY2006 Closing and FY2007
Opening Instructions, we identified 50 agencies with outstanding advances totaling
$80,647,037.74, as of June 30, 2006. From these we selected and examined 46 advances
from 31 agencies totaling $36,777,804.53 to determine whether fiscal year 2006 advance
funds were closed before fiscal year 2007 advances were opened, and were documented in
compliance with the OSC’s closing instructions. Our review determined that all advances
tested were in compliance with the OSC’s FY2006 Closing and FY2007 Opening
Instructions, Section 8, Accounts Payable Management.
The encumbrance issues noted in this report were reported to the OSC during the audit so
that timely corrective action could be taken.

i

2006-5001-16S

TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AUDIT RESULTS

5

1. PRIOR AUDIT RESULTS

5

Our prior audit disclosed that three agencies processed three encumbrance transactions
totaling $38,122.30 that were paid for with fiscal year 2005 funds, although goods or
services had not been received by the June 30, 2005 deadline. In addition, our prior audit
reported that two agencies likely would have used fiscal year 2005 funds for fiscal year
2006 obligations had their encumbrances totaling $64,702.81 not been selected as part of
our review. State Finance Law requires that annual appropriations may be expended only
for expenses for the same fiscal year. Consequently, goods and services to be paid for
with current fiscal year appropriations must be received and accepted within that same
fiscal year (July 1 to June 30). Further, our prior audit disclosed that one agency
processed one encumbrance transaction totaling $165,150.86 that was paid 12 days
beyond the 30-day time limit set by the Commonwealth’s bill-paying policy, and missed
an opportunity to take advantage of a vendor-offered discount that would have saved the
Commonwealth an additional $1,651.51. Additionally, our prior audit disclosed that one
agency authorized payment of a vendor invoice totaling $11,746 prior to receiving all
ordered items. The payment for goods not received is contrary to State Finance Law.
Our follow-up review found that appropriate corrective steps had been implemented by
the Cape & Islands District Attorney’s Office (CIDA), the Massachusetts District
Attorneys Association (DAA), the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism
(MOTT), and the Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke (SHH) to ensure compliance with the OSC
FY2006 Closing and FY2007 Opening Instructions pertaining to encumbrance
management. Also, because the Berkshire County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) year-end
encumbrance transactions did not meet the $5,000 encumbrance selection criteria in FY
2006, we will follow-up at the BCSO in our FY2007 review. In addition, our follow-up
examination disclosed that necessary corrective measures have been implemented by the
Department of State Police (DSP) to ensure compliance with the Commonwealth’s billpaying policy and vendor-offered discounts. Further, our follow-up review determined
that MOTT, through the Department of Business and Technology, has taken the
necessary corrective action by implementing controls to ensure compliance with State
Finance Law.
2. ENCUMBRANCE MANAGEMENT

6

We tested 325 encumbrance transactions, totaling $10,291,601.60, and found a significant
degree of compliance with the OSC’s closing instructions. However, we did find that
two state agencies processed three encumbrance transactions totaling $20,974.37 that
were paid for with fiscal year 2006 funds, although goods had not been received by the
June 30, 2006 deadline. We also identified one agency that processed one encumbrance
totaling $28,938 that included funds to pay for prior fiscal years 2001 through 2005
obligations totaling $27,825 with fiscal year 2006 funds. In addition, our review found
that one agency modified an encumbrance transaction on June 20, 2006 to $8,178.86
from $5,821.14 that later was allowed to lapse at the end of the Commonwealth's
accounts payable period ending August 31, 2006. This action is indicative of an agency
that did not conduct the OSC-required detailed and meaningful analysis of its year-end

ii

2006-5001-16S

TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

needs. Our examination also disclosed that one agency, contrary to State Finance Law,
processed an encumbrance totaling $18,336 after they had initiated, authorized
performance, and accepted ordered goods. Further, we determined that one agency
processed two payments for vendor invoices totaling $5,323.53 and $3,668.25 that were
paid 26 and 29 days, respectively, beyond the Commonwealth’s 30-day bill-payment
timeframe. Additionally, we determined that one agency processed two encumbrances
for capital improvements totaling $23,849.46 and $8,980.19, that required additional
funding due to responsible personnel not adhering to management-prescribed change
order policies and procedures and not ensuring that sufficient funding was available
before authorizing scope of work changes for supplemental construction costs totaling
$641.72 and $5,391.01, respectively.
SCHEDULE A

18

Analysis of Selected Encumbrance Transactions for Fiscal Year 2006
SCHEDULE B

18
20

Analysis of Selected Advances for Fiscal Year 2006

iii

20

2006-5001-16S

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION
Background

As authorized by Chapter 11, Section 12, of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State
Auditor examined state agency accounting records to review their compliance with the Office of the
State Comptroller’s (OSC’s) FY2006 Closing and FY2007 Opening Instructions, specifically for the
June 30, 2006 cut-off for encumbrances and disbursement (advance fund) management.

We

selected 75 state agencies to test certain encumbrance transactions and 31 state agencies to test
certain advance funds. Encumbrances represent a state agency’s official notification to the State
Comptroller that a certain portion of the funds appropriated to it will be needed to meet known
spending obligations. Advances represent spending authority delegated by the OSC and processed
by the Office of the State Treasurer (OST) for funds primarily used for department emergency
payroll Dynacash accounts and other emergency needs.
Chapter 29, Section 5C, of the General Laws requires the OSC to issue an annual report on state
finances to the Commissioner of Administration on or before October 31. That report is essential
for subsequent-year budgeting and planning. Included in this year’s report are fiscal year 2006
expenditures, which affect the Commonwealth’s surplus or deficit and future budgets. To have
accurate and timely data for these and other reports, the Commonwealth must close its books
accordingly. Therefore, the OSC issues a set of closing instructions to each agency prior to the close
of each fiscal year, which ends on June 30.
Included in those instructions are procedures specific to determining the proper encumbrance
amounts for accounts payable and the timely disposition and proper accounting for advance funds
for the current fiscal year. The procedures ensure accurate accounting for year-end cut-offs for
encumbrances and disbursements (advance fund) management, resulting in the use of accurate
financial information in the preparation of the Commonwealth’s annual financial statements.
Chapter 488 of the Acts and Resolves of 1986, known as the Fiscal Reform Act, requires certain
transfers of surplus balances among the funds of the Commonwealth (e.g., from the General Fund
to the Program Stabilization Fund and the Tax Reduction Fund).

Therefore, it has become

imperative for agencies to comply with the closing section instructions and to reserve only the
required funds supported by adequate and appropriate documentation. The proper accounting for

1

2006-5001-16S

INTRODUCTION

encumbrances for the accounts-payable period ensures the completeness and accuracy of the
Commonwealth’s surplus and deficit balances as reported in the annual financial statements.
Audit Scope, Objectives, and Methodology

The scope of our review, which was conducted in accordance with applicable generally accepted
government auditing standards, was limited to an evaluation of state agency compliance with the
OSC’s annual closing and opening instructions.

These instructions mandate specific year-end

procedures for state agencies in analyzing and finalizing encumbrances and in accounting for
advance funds.
To determine compliance with the June 30 receipt of goods and services requirement and evaluate
evidence of management’s detailed and meaningful analyses of encumbrance needs, we performed
two tests of encumbrance management. To determine compliance with the OSC’s FY2006 Closing
and FY2007 Opening Instructions for encumbrance management, we identified 134,992 fiscal year
2006 encumbrances, totaling $2,734,462,867.49, outstanding as of June 30, 2006. We selected 325
fiscal year 2006 encumbrance transactions from the Massachusetts Management Accounting and
Reporting System (MMARS) Information Warehouse System by utilizing Audit Command Language
software. First, we examined 250 fiscal year 2006 encumbrance transactions, totaling $5,124,205.85
from the 3,164 encumbrance transactions (totaling $542,084,490.56) that were entered into the
Commonwealth’s accounting system from June 19 to June 30, 2006, the final two weeks of the fiscal
year. Second, we selected 50 encumbrance transactions, totaling $2,270,329.93, consisting of open
encumbrances as of June 30, 2006. In addition, we selected 25 late encumbrance transactions,
totaling $2,897,065.82, submitted by departments to the OSC for entry into the Commonwealth’s
accounting system during July 20061. We performed these tests to determine whether goods and
services purchased by state agencies with fiscal year 2006 funds were received by June 30, 2006 and
to evaluate evidence of management’s detailed and meaningful analyses of encumbrance needs.
The OSC’s advance funds closing instructions require that each department account for fiscal year
2006 advance funds before opening fiscal year 2007 advances by documenting the expenditure of

1

The OSC accommodates late encumbrances due to unforeseen circumstances on a limited basis. Late encumbrances
may include Contract Transactions, Recurring Payment Orders, and General Accounting Encumbrances. The most
common reasons for late encumbrances’ being submitted by departments for entry by the OSC include improper
coding of (final payment) Commodity Based Payment Requests or General Accounting Expenditures and
modifications to accounting line data for existing encumbrances.

2

2006-5001-16S

INTRODUCTION

advance or cash repayment of any balance remaining or by adhering to specific OSC closing
instructions pertaining to departments with emergency payroll Dynacash accounts. To determine
compliance with the OSC’s advance funds closing instructions, we reviewed a report2—provided by
the OSC—of the MMARS Warehouse for open advances, of which we identified 50 agencies with
advances outstanding as of June 30, 2006, totaling $80,647,037.74. We then selected 46 advance
funds, totaling $36,777,804.53, from 31 state agencies for review.
During our review of the various state agencies, we (1) contacted key staff to determine whether
adequate internal controls existed over encumbrances; (2) obtained and reviewed documentation to
support open encumbrance balances; (3) determined whether goods and services were received or
provided by June 30, 2006; (4) contacted vendors, when necessary, to obtain independent
verification that goods were received and services were rendered by the June 30, 2006 cut-off date;
and (5) determined whether fiscal year 2006 advance funds were closed and accounted for in
accordance with the OSC’s closing instructions. From the two sets of encumbrance transactions
tested, we randomly selected 73 for vendor verification of delivery of goods or services by June 30,
2006.
Our review determined that agency compliance with the OSC closing instructions was high: 321 of
325 fiscal year 2006 encumbrance transactions tested, or 99%, were in compliance with the closing
instructions for encumbrances as of June 30, 2006. Furthermore, all advances reviewed were
accounted for in compliance with disbursement (advance funds) management closing and opening
instructions. However, although compliance was high, four agencies selected for this test had not
fully complied with requirements of the OSC closing instructions, as reported in the Audit Results
section and Schedule A. Further, our review found that one agency had not complied with the
Commonwealth’s 30-day bill-paying policy, while another agency, contrary to State Finance Law,
established an encumbrance after ordering and receiving their goods. In addition, one agency
processed two encumbrances for capital improvements that were not effectively monitored, and
therefore exposed the Commonwealth to a liability due to increased construction cost obligations
totaling $641.72 and $5,391.01 without determining whether adequate funding was available.
The encumbrance issues noted in this report were reported to the OSC during the audit so that
timely corrective action could be taken. To that end, the OSC processed the necessary adjusting
2

Budget fiscal year 2006 Advance Fund Report -open advance table (OPAT) as of 7/3/2006.

3

2006-5001-16S

INTRODUCTION

entries to properly account for the expenditure of goods received after the June 30, 2006 deadline as
fiscal year 2007 obligations and expenses, and credited general revenue as if fiscal year 2006 balances
were reverted. Additionally, in an effort to ensure that these shortcomings do not occur again, the
OSC requested that each department prepare a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) in response to our
results.

Furthermore, a copy of each department’s CAP will be placed in the OSC Quality

Assurance (QA) files and will be part of the next scheduled OSC QA review.

4

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

AUDIT RESULTS
1. PRIOR AUDIT RESULTS

Our prior audit (No. 2005-5001-16S) disclosed that the Cape & Islands District Attorney’s
Office (CIDA), the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (DAA), and the Massachusetts
Office of Travel and Tourism (MOTT) processed three encumbrance transactions that were not
in compliance with the OSC’s closing instructions. As a result, $38,122.30 of fiscal year 2005
funds was used to pay fiscal year 2006 obligations. Only goods and services received by June 30,
2005 should have been paid for with fiscal year 2005 funds. Our follow-up review found that
the CIDA, DAA and MOTT have taken the necessary corrective action by implementing the
controls needed to ensure compliance with the OSC’s FY2006 Closing and FY2007 Opening
Instructions pertaining to encumbrance management.
In addition, our prior audit reported that the Berkshire County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) and the
Soldiers’ Home in Holyoke (SHH) likely would have used fiscal year 2005 funds for fiscal year
2006 obligations had their encumbrances totaling $64,702.81 not been selected as part of our
review. State Finance Law requires that annual appropriations may be expended only for
expenses for the same fiscal year. Consequently, goods and services to be paid for with current
fiscal year appropriations must be received and accepted within that same fiscal year (July 1 to
June 30). Had we not selected these encumbrances as part of our review, these agencies would
have inadvertently used fiscal year 2005 funds to pay for goods received after the June 30, 2005
deadline. As a result of our prior review, the BCSO’s fiscal year 2006 appropriation was used to
pay for goods received after the June 30, 2005 deadline and the SHH allowed its fiscal year 2005
encumbrance to lapse and revert to the Commonwealth on August 31, 2005, the end of the
accounts payable period. Our follow-up review determined that the SHH has taken appropriate
corrective action by implementing the necessary controls to ensure compliance with the OSC’s
closing instructions and State Finance Law. However, since the BCSO year-end encumbrance
activity did not satisfy encumbrance transaction selection requirements3, the BCSO will be
included in our FY2007 follow-up review.

3

Encumbrance transaction selections required a minimum dollar threshold of $5,000.

5

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

Further, our prior audit disclosed that the Department of State Police (DSP) processed one
encumbrance transaction that was not paid within the 30-day timeframe required by the
Commonwealth’s bill-paying policy and missed an opportunity to take advantage of a vendoroffered discount that would have saved the Commonwealth additional funds. Our follow-up
review found that the DSP has taken the needed corrective action by implementing appropriate
controls to ensure compliance with the Commonwealth’s bill-paying policy.
Additionally, our prior audit disclosed that MOTT authorized and paid a vendor invoice totaling
$11,746 prior to ensuring that all items had been received. MOTT’s payment for goods not
received constituted noncompliance with State Finance Law.

Our follow-up examination

determined that MOTT, through the Department of Business and Technology, has taken
appropriate corrective action by implementing the necessary controls to ensure compliance with
the state finance law.
2. ENCUMBRANCE MANAGEMENT

Sections 6 and 8 of the OSC’s FY2006 Closing and FY2007 Opening Instructions state, in part:
State Finance Law requires that funding be in place before goods, services or other
obligations can be requested or accepted from contractors, vendors, or employees.
Specifically, under M.G.L. c.29, § 26; M.G.L. c.29, § 27; and M.G.L. c.29, § 29,
departments may not incur a liability for the Commonwealth in excess of their
appropriation or allotments and the Comptroller may not permit the disbursement
(payment) or incurring of an obligation (encumbrance) by departments without a
sufficient appropriation and allotment.
During the final quarter of the fiscal year, departments should perform a timely review to
ensure all FY06 encumbrances are in place to support departmental needs. Routine
encumbering for all appropriation types should be submitted in MMARS by June 15 so
that the remainder of FY06 can be used to handle final adjustments.
Departments should review their financial status to ensure that there will be sufficient
funding encumbered to cover all commitments incurred during the fiscal year.
State Finance Law requires that annual appropriations may be expended only for
expenses for the same fiscal year (M.G.L. c.29, §12). Goods and services to be paid for
with current fiscal year appropriations must be received and accepted within that same
fiscal year (July 1-June 30) (M.G.L. c.4. §7).
Under no circumstances should FY2006 funds be used for FY2007 expenditures or viceversa, unless specifically allowed with appropriate legislative language.
Departments should confirm with vendors that all goods and services are to be received
or completed by June 30th.

6

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

FY2006 accounts payable encumbrances are valid only for services rendered or goods
delivered on or before June 30, 2006. Completion of services or delivery of goods after
this date means that those services or goods are valid FY2007 obligations and should be
handled instead through FY2006 prior year deficiency.
Completed requests to pay prior year deficiencies out of FY2006 funds must be
submitted to the Comptroller's Office, Accounts Payable Bureau, no later than June 15,
2006.

To evaluate agency compliance with the above requirements, we selected 325 encumbrance5
transactions, totaling $10,291,601.60, processed by 75 state agencies. To conduct our review, we
performed two tests.
First, we examined 250 encumbrance transactions—totaling $5,124,205.85, processed by 60 state
agencies—from the 3,164 encumbrance transactions (totaling $542,084,490.56) that were
entered into the Commonwealth’s accounting system from June 19, 2006 to June 30, 2006, the
final two weeks of the fiscal year. Second, we selected (a) 25 late encumbrance transactions for
17 state agencies, totaling $2,897,065.82, that the OSC entered into MMARS during July 2006
and (b) 50 encumbrance transactions, totaling $2,270,329.93, processed by 29 state agencies that
consisted of open encumbrances as of June 30, 2006. In connection with the 325 encumbrance
transactions selected for testing, our review found that two state agencies processed three
encumbrance transactions, totaling $20,974.37, using fiscal year 2006 funds to pay for goods that
had not been received by the June 30, 2006 deadline. Further, one state agency—without
requesting and obtaining required OSC approval—processed a FY2006 encumbrance that
included prior years obligations (FY2001 to FY2005) totaling $27,825. Another state agency
increased an encumbrance by $2,357.72 to $8,178.86 in late June that was allowed to lapse on
August 31, 2006, the end of the Commonwealth’s accounts payable period. This action is
indicative of an agency that did not conduct a detailed and meaningful analysis to determine and
support its year-end needs. A detailed and meaningful analysis likely would have resulted in an
encumbrance adjustment and the fund balance being reverted to the Commonwealth (and
available for other obligations) on June 30, 2006, two months earlier .

5

An encumbrance is a budgetary document that reserves a portion of authorized funds for a specific purpose. The full
amount of purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments of appropriated funds are encumbered and recorded as
a deduction from the appropriation prior to an actual expense to ensure that such commitments do not exceed
appropriations. The Commonwealth’s encumbrance system is a budgetary control feature that allows departments to
plan how they will spend their funds and to control the expenditure of committed funds. When used properly,
encumbrances can prevent overspending.

7

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

Additionally, one state agency, contrary to State Finance Law, processed an encumbrance
totaling $18,336 after they ordered and received their goods; while another state agency
processed an encumbrance totaling $8,991.78 that were not paid within the Commonwealth’s
30-day bill-paying policy. Our review also identified another state agency that processed two
encumbrance transactions totaling $23,849.46 and $8,980.19 for capital improvements made at
two correctional facilities that did not include supplemental construction costs totaling $641.72
and $5,391.01, and did not ensure that adequate funding was available to support additional
construction costs. In one instance, additional funds were allocated from the facility’s regional
office, while an open construction encumbrance was used to defray additional construction costs
incurred for the other shortfall.
a. Noncompliance with OSC Year-End Encumbrance Closing and Opening Instructions

Our review found that the Cape Cod Community College (CCC) and the Executive Office of
Public Safety (EPS) processed three encumbrance transactions that were not in compliance with
the OSC’s closing instructions. As a result, $20,974.37 of fiscal year 2006 funds was used to pay
fiscal year 2007 obligations. Only goods and services received by June 30, 2006 should have
been paid for with fiscal year 2006 funds. Both the CCC and the EPS used FY 2006 funds to
pay for delivered goods after June 30, 2006. The EPS received partial deliveries of rape and
sexual assault kits and toxicology kits that ranged from five to seven days beyond the OSC June
30 deadline; while the CCC received its partial delivery of information technology accessories on
July 25, 2006 or 25 days beyond the June 30, 2006 deadline.

Additionally, the Attorney

General’s Office (AGO) processed an encumbrance transaction that was not in compliance with
the OSC closing instructions when it used fiscal year 2006 funds to pay for prior fiscal years
(FY2001 - FY2005) obligations totaling $27,825 without submitting the required request to the
OSC and receiving authorization to pay prior year deficiencies with FY2006 funds. Further, we
determined that the Chelsea Soldiers’ Home (CHE), by not performing a detailed and
meaningful analysis of its year-end encumbrance needs as required by the OSC closing
instructions, unnecessarily delayed the Commonwealth use of funds totaling $8,178.86 until the
August 31, 2006 encumbrance period lapsed .

Had the CHE performed a detailed and

meaningful analysis of encumbrances to determine its needs, these funds would have reverted to
the Commonwealth and been available for other obligations two months earlier than the
accounts payable closing date of August 31, 2006.

8

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

Annually, the OSC provides detailed closing instructions and procedures for departments to
follow when finalizing year-end encumbrances and managing accounts payable activity.
Although the OSC’s FY2006 Closing and FY2007 Opening Instructions emphasized that: 1)
goods and services to be paid for with current fiscal year appropriations must be received and
accepted within the same fiscal year (July 1 - June 30); 2) a completed request must be submitted
to the OSC to pay prior-year deficiencies out of FY2006 funds; and 3) agencies must perform a
detailed and meaningful analysis of encumbrances to determine agency needs; our review found
that goods were received by the CCC and the EPS the June 30, 2006 deadline; the AGO did not
submit a request and receive authorization from the OSC to pay prior-year deficiencies out of
FY2006 funds; and the CHE did not perform a detailed and meaningful analysis of
encumbrances to determine its needs:

6

•

The CCC created a commodity purchase order (PC) on June 12, 2006 totaling
$54,808.50 for software, software licensing and installation, and technical support
services for its campus manager network security system. To determine whether goods
and services were received and/or completed by the OSC June 30, 2006 deadline, we
performed a vendor verification.6 The results showed that the CCC received a partial
delivery on June 28, 2006 totaling $48,813.50 and a second delivery on July 25, 2006 (25
days after the June 30 deadline) totaling $5,995. The college comptroller explained that
due to renovations and the lack of available space, the college was unable to take delivery
and asked that the vendor hold on to the remaining software items until the college was
ready for occupancy and installation. Furthermore, due to the incomplete delivery, the
college did not want to pre-pay the vendor invoice and decided to hold on to the invoice
until full delivery was completed. The holding of a vendor invoice that is incorrect or
cannot for good reason be accepted, e.g., goods not delivered, is not in compliance with
the Commonwealth’s bill paying policy issued by the OSC. Specifically, departments
have fifteen (15) days from the receipt of an invoice to notify a vendor why an invoice
has been rejected and to identify requirements to correct the deficiency. Moreover, the
invoice should not be held and negotiated, but rather immediately returned to the
vendor. Had the CCC returned the original invoice, requested a new invoice for actual
FY2006 deliveries totaling $48,813.50, and asked for another invoice for items delivered
after the June 30 deadline totaling $5,995 and paid for with FY2007 funds, the college
would have avoided noncompliance with the OSC closing instructions.

•

The EPS recorded two commodity purchase order encumbrances (PC’s), one on June 13
and the other on June 14, 2006 (2½ weeks before the June 30 closing), totaling $59,704
for rape and sexual assault kits and toxicology kits. Through our vendor verification, we
determined that kits totaling $14,979.37, or 25% of the total $59,704 encumbered,
represented vendor deliveries (drop shipments) made to various Commonwealth

We verified dates of delivery by contacting the vendor and obtaining shipping information and tracking numbers,
which are used to trace shipments on the websites of various shipping companies, e.g., the United Parcel Service of
America, Inc. and FedEx.

9

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

hospitals between July 5 and July 7, 2006, or 5 to 7 days beyond the OSC’s June 30, 2006
deadline. The EPS explained that late deliveries were due to the lack of a facility to
warehouse kits; consequently, kits needed to be delivered to various hospitals throughout
the state by the vendor. Alternatively, the EPS, understanding that it did not have a
warehouse facility to house kits, would have benefited from a more-timely review and
encumbering of funds to ensure that its FY2006 accounts payable encumbrance was
valid and for goods delivered on or before the OSC June 30 deadline. Further, although
a notation on the vendor invoice provided by the EPS indicated “confirmed receipt of
goods by 6/30/06,” our review shows that the EPS needs to do a better job of verifying
the receipt of goods, especially at fiscal year-end. It is likely that had the EPS conducted
a more timely review and planning of encumbered funds to support its needs and
confirmed with its vendor that goods are to be received by June 30th, the EPS would
have avoided noncompliance with the OSC’s closing instructions. As a result of our
audit, the EPS stated that they “do not intend to have this occur again in FY 07.”

7

•

The AGO entered a contract encumbrance (CT) on June 27, 2006 totaling $28,938 for
information technology (IT) maintenance services and software licenses. Our
examination of supporting documentation disclosed, however, that only $1,113 was for
FY2006 software usage expenses, while, $27,8257 represented software usage charges
relating to the prior fiscal years FY2001 - FY2005. Additional documentation showed
that the vendor—in May 2006—notified the AGO of its intent to carry out a license
review of its products being used by the AGO. The license review showed that the
vendor had under-billed software usage at the AGO over the last six (6) years. The
revised information—confirmed by IT staff at the AGO— showed the number of users
not billed as follows: fiscal year 2001 (650), fiscal years 2002 through 2004 (450), fiscal
year 2005 (150) and fiscal year 2006 (50). The AGO Director of Finance explained that
the office was not aware of the under-billed software usage condition until the vendor
notification in May 2006 (FY2006). Further, the director commented that: “While the
license period was prior to Fiscal Year 2006, the…audit in which this error was found
occurred in FY 06. We had not been billed in any of the previous fiscal years for these
charges and had, in fact, paid the original bills in the fiscal year in which they were
received. For these reasons, we processed this document as a FY 2006 transaction.”
State Finance Law requires, however, that annual appropriations may be expended only
for expenses for the same fiscal year. Furthermore, the OSC year-end closing
instructions calls for departments to complete and submit a request to the OSC—no
later than June 15, 2006—to pay for prior year deficiencies out of FY2006 funds.
Accordingly, the AGO, to avoid noncompliance, should have completed and submitted
a request to the OSC and received authorization to pay prior year deficiencies totaling
$27,825 out of FY2006 funds.

•

The CHE modified a commodity purchase order (PC) on June 20, 2006 to $8,178.86
from $5,821.14 (a 41% increase) for heating fuel. Our review disclosed that although the
CHE increased its encumbrance by $2,357.72, the fuel purchase never took place and the
encumbrance was allowed to lapse at the end of the Commonwealth’s accounts payable

Software usage charges totaling $27,825 not previously billed and relating to prior fiscal years are as follows: $14,469
(FY2001), $10,017 (FY’s 2002 to 2004), and $3,339 (FY2005).

10

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

period ending August 31, 2006. The OSC’s closing instructions require that departments
during the final quarter of the fiscal year perform a timely review of their needs to ensure
that all fiscal year-end encumbrances are in place to support their needs. In addition, the
OSC’s instructions established June 15th as the date when all routine encumbering for all
appropriation types should be submitted in MMARS, and requires that departments use
the remainder of the fiscal year—ending on June 30—to handle final adjustments to its
encumbrances. The CHE’s actions indicate that management’s decision to encumber
$8,178.86 in fiscal year 2006 funds was not based on a detailed and meaningful analysis
of agency needs. Moreover, because funds encumbered at year-end are not available to
the Commonwealth for other obligations, encumbrances that do not represent a valid
commitment unnecessarily delay the Commonwealth’s access to these funds until the
August 31st encumbrance lapse date, or two months after the June 30th fiscal year closing.
The CHE explained that subsequent to its encumbrance increase, its plant engineer—
who initiated the heating fuel requisition—ended his employment with the CHE prior to
the fiscal year 2006 closing. Since no replacement was made, the heating fuel purchase
never took place. Nonetheless, had the CHE year-end control procedures included a
reexamination of year-end encumbrances as set forth in the OSC closing instructions,
management could have identified the need for a final encumbrance adjustment and
timely reverted uncommitted funds to the Commonwealth; thereby avoiding
noncompliance with the OSC’s closing instructions.
Although unforeseeable circumstances may require some encumbrances to be processed during
late June, departments should make every reasonable effort to avoid doing so. Further, the lack
of a thorough understanding of and sufficient oversight and monitoring for compliance with the
OSC’s closing instructions can result in unnecessary delays and issues with the fiscal year closing,
and increases the risk that detailed and meaningful analyses of encumbrances may not take place.
Recommendation

The state agencies cited above should take corrective action to ensure that they adhere to all
encumbrance requirements of the OSC’s Closing and Opening Instructions and State Finance
Law. To that end, expenditures must be charged to the appropriate fiscal year, goods and
services must be received by the established June 30 deadline, and a completed request and
authorization must be received by the OSC before current year funds can be used to pay prior
year deficiencies. Further, state agencies must provide adequate oversight and monitoring over
encumbrance activities; perform timely, detailed, and meaningful reviews of their financial status
to ensure that encumbrances are in place to support department needs; and confirm with
vendors that all good and services are to be received or completed by June 30th. In addition, the
OSC should continue to communicate with agencies and conduct additional training to assist

11

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

them with understanding the necessity of compliance with its annual closing and opening
instructions.
b. Noncompliance with Commonwealth Bill-Paying Policy and State Finance Law

Our review identified one agency that did not comply with the Commonwealth’s bill-paying
policy, the goal of which is to routinely pay bills within 30 days, while another agency did not
comply with the State Finance Law that requires that funding be in place before goods, services,
or other obligations can be requested or accepted.
The Commonwealth’s Bill Paying Policy and General Payment Policies (OSC MMARS Policy:
Accounts Payable, issued July 1, 2004 and last revised July 27, 2005) states, in part:
•

The goal of the Commonwealth's Bill Paying Policy is to routinely pay its bills in 30
days via Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) when no discount is offered, or there are no
contractual terms requiring earlier payment. Unless there is financial benefit to the
Commonwealth, such as a vendor discount or a contractual payment due date,
compliance with the bill payment policy should not be considered successful if
payments are issued in less than 30 days. Interest is earned on Commonwealth
funds; therefore, if payments are released early with no reciprocal benefit, the
Commonwealth loses valuable investment income.

•

There are four key elements to ensuring Bill Paying Policy compliance:
1. Date Stamp Invoices. Date stamp invoices as soon as they arrive
on Commonwealth property.
Departments are responsible for
ensuring that invoices are properly tracked and timely processed in
order to avoid late payment penalties. To ensure a proper record for
invoices the department must implement sufficient internal controls
at all locations receiving invoices to ensure that:
•

All invoices are date-stamped as soon as the invoice arrives on
Commonwealth property in whatever medium the invoice arrives.

•

If a department does central payment processing and receives
invoices at regional locations, the invoice must be date-stamped as
soon as it arrives at the regional location. Regional locations should
also have their own date stamps because an invoice can arrive at
regional locations and each location is considered Commonwealth
property. Regional locations should be fully aware of this policy and
have a plan to handle such documents. The date an invoice is
received at a regional location is considered the "date received" and
starts the payment clock running even if payments are processed
centrally or at another location….

2. Manage the invoices review/approval process. (receipt of invoice,
review, approval of expense, financial approval, entry of payment into
MMARS);

12

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

3. Return Invoices that are not acceptable. (within 15 days, 30 days for
Medicaid providers). The department has fifteen (15) days (30 days for
Medicaid providers) from the receipt of an invoice to notify the vendor with
written reason(s) why an invoice has been rejected and identifying
requirements to cure the deficiency. If the invoice is incorrect or cannot for
good reason be accepted, it should not be held by the department and
negotiated, it should be returned to the vendor immediately. The payment
day count will begin again from the beginning when the department receives
a corrected invoice.
4. Review payment data. via the Information Warehouse.

Our examination found that the Department of Public Health (DPH) processed two vendor
invoices for laboratory supplies totaling $5,323.53 and $3,668.25 that were paid 26 and 29 days,
respectively, beyond the Commonwealth’s 30-day bill-paying policy. The DPH attributed the
late payments to a new employee in their accounts payable unit that resulted in a significant
backlog in unprocessed invoices. Nevertheless, the department’s late processing of vendor
invoices also points out that necessary supervision and oversight administrative controls were
lacking, and that invoice management procedures did not ensure that accounts payable payments
(vendor invoices) were being properly tracked, timely processed, and if applicable, vendoroffered discounts would be taken in compliance with the Commonwealth’s bill-paying policy.
Had the DPH provided closer supervision over its accounts payment unit and properly assessed
its payment processing steps, including the tracking of vendor invoices, the late payments and
resulting noncompliance with the Commonwealth’s bill paying policy likely would have been
avoided. Moreover, although the Commonwealth did not incur a vendor-initiated late payment
charge, these late payments could have cost the Commonwealth an additional $41.91 in latepayment and interest expenses.
Additionally, our analysis showed that the George Fingold Library (LIB) was not in compliance
with State Finance Law, which requires that funding be in place before goods, services, or other
obligations can be requested or accepted from contractors, vendors, or employees, so that an
agency cannot authorize performance to begin on a contract or request or accept services or
goods in excess of approved available funding. Evidence of sufficient funding is an approved
encumbrance in MMARS that fully supports anticipated expenditures. Our review determined
that the LIB did not ensure that sufficient funding (commodity purchase order) was in place
(approved in MMARS) before they initiated, authorized performance, and accepted computer
equipment and accessories costing $18,336.

13

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

Specifically, our review of supporting documentation indicated that on June 9, 2006, the LIB
Assistant Director/Head of Systems received a vendor purchase quotation for computer
equipment and accessories totaling $18,336 that was forwarded to the LIB business manager for
processing. However, our examination of MMARS records disclosed that the LIB did not enter
the necessary commodity purchase order (PC encumbrance) until June 28, 2006, or two days
following the Assistant Director/Head of Systems signing of the packing slip—on June 26,
2006—indicating receipt of ordered goods. Requesting, authorizing performance, and accepting
goods without committing sufficient funding constitutes noncompliance with State Finance Law
and the Commonwealth’s encumbrance budgetary process; as a result, funds may not be
available for payments and the Commonwealth incur a liability. The LIB budget manager
explained that the late processing of the PC encumbrance document was attributable to the
significant number of documents being entered during this critical period. Further, once the
deficiency was identified, the PC encumbrance was immediately processed.

Effective

management oversight and monitoring of encumbrance practices and procurement activities,
along with monthly reviews during the last quarter of the fiscal year to ensure that all
encumbrances are in place to support department needs, likely would have resulted in the LIB’s
compliance with State Finance Law.
Recommendation

The DPH should take corrective action to ensure that they adhere to the Commonwealth’s billpayment policy by paying bills within the required 30-day limit. To that end, the DPH should
ensure that appropriate supervision and oversight is given to its accounts payable unit and that
payment-processing steps assure that vendor invoices are properly tracked, timely processed and
when applicable, vendor-offered discounts are taken.
Likewise, the LIB should take corrective action to ensure that they adhere to State Finance Law
and the Commonwealth’s encumbrance budgetary control feature by ensuring that sufficient
funding (encumbrance) is in place (approved in MMARS) before goods, services or other
obligations are requested and performance authorized or accepted.

Additionally, LIB

management must provide adequate oversight and monitoring of its encumbrance management
practices and procurement activities that include monthly reviews during the last quarter of the
fiscal year to ensure that all encumbrances are in place to support its needs.

14

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

In addition, the OSC should continue to communicate with the above agencies and conduct
additional training to assist them with understanding the necessity of compliance with the
Commonwealth’s bill-paying policy, State Finance Law, and the Commonwealth’s encumbrance
budgetary process.
c. Inadequate Internal Control Over Construction Contracts

Our review determined that the Department of Correction (DOC) processed two contract
encumbrance transactions totaling $23,849.46 and $8,980.19 for construction contracts being
performed at two of its correctional facilities.

Our analysis disclosed that during both

construction contracts, responsible DOC personnel authorized scope changes to construction
projects without preparing the requisite change order request for approval by the project
manager and identifying—through the Administration Division—if sufficient funding was
available for supplemental construction costs totaling $641.72 and $5,391.01, respectively. In
doing so, responsible DOC personnel did not adhere to management-prescribed change order
procurement policies and procedures and State Finance Law, which requires that funding be in
place before goods, services, or other obligations can be requested or accepted. Moreover, the
DOC unnecessarily put the Commonwealth at risk of incurring a liability in excess of
appropriated funds to fulfill these unmet obligations.
Each year departments are reminded by the OSC—through their annual fiscal year closing and
opening instructions—of State Finance Law requirements that funding be in place before goods,
services, or other obligations can be requested or accepted from contractors, vendors, or
employees, so that a department cannot authorize performance to begin on a contract or request
or accept services or goods in excess of approved available funding.
Further, the DOC Departmental Purchasing Procedures, 103 DOC 340, Section 340.13 (3)
Change Orders, states:
Any deviation from the original scope of work must be noted with a notice of intention
and an extra work order must be attached to a change order request. The change order
request must be signed by the project manager. With the exception of emergencies,
funds need to be identified by the Administration Division before any work is authorized
by a change order.

Detailed below are two instances where correctional facilities did not comply with the above
noted provisions.

15

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

On February 23, 2006 the Fiscal Services Division of the MCI-Shirley Correctional Facility
processed a contract (CT) encumbrance totaling $8,980.19 based on a proposal and work outline
that included the removal of an old fuel inventory monitoring system, the installation of a new
fuel inventory monitoring system, replacement of all data cable and testing, and repairs to an
underground storage tank. Due to equipment delivery delays, work did not begin until April 6,
2006, at which time an installation review conducted by the contractor revealed that changes to
the scope of services were needed due to unforeseen conditions. The facility’s Director of
Engineering, in consultation with the contractor, approved the new changes prior to the
commencement of installation services. Furthermore, according to the Director, the contractor
commented, “any additional costs would be nominal/non-consequential.” Even so, no change order
request and approval was executed, and no determination of adequate funding was made to the
Fiscal Services Division before the Director of Engineering approved these services. Supporting
documentation also disclosed that the project was completed on April 15, 2006; however, the
Fiscal Services Division did not receive an invoice from the contractor until June 23, 2006,
nearly 70 days after the completion of construction and seven days before the close of fiscal year
2006. Moreover, the invoice valued at $14,371.20 exceeded the original $8,980.19 encumbrance
by $5,391.01, or 60%, and therefore necessitated the allocation of additional funds from its
regional office, the DOC Administrative Services-Concord Office.
At the Bridgewater Correctional Complex, its Fiscal Services Division created a contract (CT)
encumbrance on June 16, 2006 to encumber funds for the removal and replacement of fencing
based on an estimate totaling $23,849.46 dated June 15, 2006. During construction, the DOC
project engineer—due to security concerns—authorized a construction modification with the
contractor that called for the installation of a 7′ x 7′ foot gate instead of the original 5′ x 7′.
Although the project engineer indicated that he was aware of the DOC procurement procedures,
the requisite change order request and project manager approval and identification of sufficient
funding with the Fiscal Services Division was not executed before the authorization and
acceptance of services. Consequently, the Fiscal Services Division became aware of these
procedural deficiencies only after it received the contractor’s invoice that disclosed construction
costs totaling $641.72 greater than the original encumbrance. To fulfill this increased obligation,
the Fiscal Services Division turned to an open facility repair, installation, and maintenance
encumbrance.

16

2006-5001-16S

AUDIT RESULTS

Deviation from prescribed operating procedures unnecessarily placed the Commonwealth at risk
of incurring a liability due to unexpected increases in construction cost obligations. These
deficiencies illustrate that the DOC needs to strengthen internal controls over its procurement
practices and affirm the importance of strict adherence to management prescribed policies and
procedures. Procurement weaknesses can be eliminated administratively through expending
greater attention to assuring that all scope of work modifications include a change order request
form approved by the project manager, and that adequate funding is identified by the
Administrative Division before any work is authorized by a change order. As a result of our
review, the DOC Administrative Services and the Division of Resource Management promptly
incorporated measures to address our concerns.
Recommendation

Given the deficiencies noted, the DOC should continue to review procurement practices in the
context of our observations and address any discernable shortcomings. At a minimum, the
DOC should more closely monitor its correctional facility procurement activities and ensure that
necessary control measures are in place that assure consistent adherence to prescribed
procurement policies and procedures and enable management to effectively track and evaluate
procurement practices and costs and ensure that adequate funding is identified before any work
is authorized by a change order.

17

2006-5001-16S

SCHEDULE A

SCHEDULE A
Analysis of Selected Encumbrance Transactions
for Fiscal Year 2006

Agency
Administrative Office of the Trial Court
Appeals Court
Attorney General’s Office
Berkshire Community College
Bristol County District Attorney’s Office
Bureau of State Office Buildings
Cape Cod Community College
Chelsea Soldiers’ Home
Chief Medical Examiner
Commission Against Discrimination
Committee for Public Counsel Services
Criminal Justice Training Council
Department of Agricultural Resources
Department of Business and Technology
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Department of Correction
Department of Early Education
Department of Education
Department of Elder Affairs
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Fire Services
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Industrial Accidents
Department of Mental Health
Department of Mental Retardation
Department of Public Health
Department of Revenue
Department of Social Services
Department of the State Police
Department of Transitional Assistance
Department of Veteran Services
Department of Workforce Development
Department of Youth Services
Division of Banks
Division of Health Care Finance
Division of Insurance
Division of Operational Services
Division of Professional Licensure
Division of Standards
Education and Quality Accountability

Number of
Encumbrances
Reviewed
22
2
3
2
5
1
5
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
24
17
2
2
1
8
4
8
1
8
16
27
9
1
19
1
2
1
11
1
1
1
1
2
2
1

Value of
Encumbrances
Reviewed
$1,069,378.48
15,713.88
34,883.00
26,422.26
138,052.34
213,952.78
127,174.50
18,178.86
26,504.84
11,760.00
6,031.25
6,456.00
21,071.76
46,726.70
430,538.22
284,420.62
105,671.54
168,439.00
20,000.00
1,205,207.91
400,804.56
174,394.05
15,567.86
79,725.97
513,558.52
380,360.65
332,267.07
19,817.77
594,100.09
97,475.73
24,129.59
49,985.83
127,380.61
5,461.68
6,936.00
24,499.60
17,393.49
198,006.00
25,437.00
24,663.73

18

Value of Goods and
Services Received
before July 1, 2005
(Fiscal Year 2005) Paid
with Fiscal Year 2006
Funds

Value of Goods and
Services Received after
June 30, 2006 (Fiscal
Year 2007) Paid with
Fiscal Year 2006 Funds

$27,825.00
-

$5,995.00
-

2006-5001-16S

SCHEDULE A

SCHEDULE A (CONTINUED)
Analysis of Selected Encumbrance Transactions
for Fiscal Year 2006

Agency
Executive Office for Administration and Finance
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Executive Office of Public Safety
Executive Office of Transportation
Fitchburg State College
George Fingold Library
Hamden County Sheriff’s Department
Hampshire County Sheriff’s Department
Holyoke Soldiers’ Home
Information Technology Division
Massachusetts Bay Community College
Massachusetts District Attorney Association
Massachusetts Highway Department
Massachusetts Lottery Commission
Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission
Massasoit Community College
Middlesex County Sheriff’s Department
Middlesex District Attorney’s Office
Military Division – Massachusetts National Guard
Municipal Police Training Commission
Northwestern District Attorney’s Office
Office of the Inspector General
Office of the State Comptroller
Office of the State Treasurer
Parole Board
Registry of Motor Vehicles
Salem State College
Secretary of the Commonwealth
Sex Offender Registry
Supreme Judicial Court
University of Massachusetts
Victim and Witness Assistance Board
Worcester County Sheriff’s Department
Worcester District Attorney’s Office
Total

Number of
Encumbrances
Reviewed
2
3
2
5
1
1
1
4
1
5
4
3
1
1
5
1
1
24
1
1
2
1
2
5
2
1
7
2
2
1
2
2
3
4
1
325

Value of
Encumbrances
Reviewed
$

171,903.06
31,430.00
193,700.00
77,289.00
281,298.78
57,047.50
18,336.00
102,401.41
11,403.70
54,143.40
65,165.48
61,856.05
5,121.00
230,000.00
124,184.00
47,686.02
6,900.00
520,423.07
5,035.00
11,577.41
10,650.57
6,916.00
38,305.88
257,450.18
12,447.49
25,334.26
366,445.86
26,742.37
51,514.50
6,874.73
23,215.72
193,605.81
27,089.52
42,550.09
37,008.00
$10,291,601.60

19

Value of Goods and
Services Received
before July 1, 2005
(Fiscal Year 2005) Paid
with Fiscal Year 2006
Funds

Value of Goods and
Services Received after
June 30, 2006 (Fiscal
Year 2007) Paid with
Fiscal Year 2006 Funds

$27,825.00

$14,979.37
$20,974.37

2006-5001-16S

SCHEDULE B

SCHEDULE B
Analysis of Selected Advances for
Fiscal Year 2006
Number of
Advances
Reviewed

Amount of
Advances Received
FY 2006

Outstanding FY
2006 Advances for
6/30/2006

Amount of
Advances for
Fiscal Year 2006
Not in
Compliance

Agency
Administrative Office of the Trial Court
Berkshire County District Attorney’s
Office
Bridgewater State College
Bristol County District Attorney’s Office
Bunker Hill Community College
Cape and Islands District Attorney’s
Office
Department of Conservation and
Recreation
Department of Correction
Department of Education
Department of Mental Retardation
Department of Public Health
Department of Revenue
Department of State Police
Department of Workforce Development
Division of Capital Asset Management
and Maintenance
Division of Operational Services
Executive Office for Administration and
Finance
Greenfield Community College
Group Insurance Commission
Information Technology Division
Massachusetts College of Art
Massachusetts Highway Department
Massachusetts Lottery Commission
Massachusetts Rehabilitation
Commission
Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office
North Shore Community College
Northwestern District Attorney’s Office
Office of the State Comptroller
Salem State College
Springfield Technical Community
College
Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office
Total

1

$ 2,677,400.93

$105,169.37

-

3
1
3
1

40,000.00
15,000.00
687,000.00
5,000.00

1,704.45
15,000.00
121,840.28
5,000.00

-

2

981.28

981.28

-

2
1
1
2
1
2
1
3

600.00
8,316,641.41
15,000.00
40,000.00
6,302.00
495,006,000.00
3,000.00
12,227,474.57

600.00
397,873.09
15,000.00
24,177.82
6,302.00
13,389,666.08
446.75
998,331.71

-

1
1

20,000.00
2,000.00

20,000.00
2,000.00

-

1
1
1
1
1
2
2

15,000.00
5,000.00
16,374,000.00
3,000.00
10,000.00
7,750.00
245,923,459.55

15,000.00
5,000.00
7,989,143.16
3,000.00
10,000.00
2,125.00
13,228,164.94

-

2
1
1
1
1
1

15,000.00
380,000.00
5,000.00
940.00
220,000.00
5,000.00

15,000.00
143,366.23
5,000.00
179.79
220,000.00
5,000.00

-

1
3
46

10,000.00
70,000.00
$782,106,549.74

10,000.00
22,732.58
$36,777,804.53

-

20



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.6
Linearized                      : Yes
Encryption                      : Standard V1.2 (40-bit)
User Access                     : Print, Copy, Fill forms, Extract, Assemble, Print high-res
Create Date                     : 2007:04:10 09:59:31-04:00
Keywords                        : 2006500116s; Financial Management and Other Special Audits, April 10, 2007
Modify Date                     : 2012:06:06 09:26:07-04:00
Source Modified                 : D:20070410135915
Tagged PDF                      : Yes
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 4.2.1-c043 52.372728, 2009/01/18-15:08:04
Producer                        : Acrobat Distiller 6.0 (Windows)
Creator Tool                    : Acrobat PDFMaker 6.0 for Word
Metadata Date                   : 2012:06:06 09:26:07-04:00
Document ID                     : uuid:e95cc576-20bb-47b6-af15-b7ad6f524836
Instance ID                     : uuid:f9bf4457-6994-4251-b960-55708f90c074
Version ID                      : 3
Format                          : application/pdf
Title                           : 2006-5001-16S Official Year- End Closing and Opening Instructions For Encumbrance and Advance Fund Management
Creator                         : 
Description                     : Audit Reports 2007
Subject                         : 2006500116s, Financial Management and Other Special Audits, April 10, 2007
Headline                        : 
Page Count                      : 24

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools