A Performance Audit
An Audit Report on The Board of Professional Engineers: A Self-directed, Semi-independent Agency
February 2018
Summary Analysis
The Board of Professional Engineers (Agency) established processes and controls that helped ensure that it accurately reported financial information as required. The Agency also had adequate processes for setting fees and assessing administrative penalties; however, it should strengthen certain controls to ensure that it consistently reports accurate information.
The Agency had financial processes and controls to help ensure that it accurately reported revenues and expenditures in its annual financial reports for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. In addition, it transferred all required funds to the General Revenue Fund. The Agency also complied with certain statutory requirements related to submitting annual and biennial reports. However, it should update its policies and strategic plan to ensure that it provides clear and consistent information and establish a process to verify the accuracy of certain data in the Texas Informational Database for Engineers (TIDE), its licensing, enforcement, and revenue database.
The Agency’s process for setting fees helped to ensure that the Agency covered its operational costs. The Agency also had a process to assess administrative penalties in a consistent manner. However, the Agency should formalize its process for waiving certain licensing fees and assess all administrative penalties in accordance with its policies.
The Agency established information technology system controls to help ensure the reliability of its financial accounting data and most of its performance measure reporting data. However, the Agency should strengthen those controls to address certain security risks that could affect the reliability of its information.
The Board of Professional Engineers (Agency) had financial processes and controls to help ensure that it accurately reported revenues and expenditures in its annual financial reports for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. In addition, it transferred all required funds to the General Revenue Fund.
The Agency submitted its 2017 SDSI biennial and fiscal year 2016 annual reports to the Legislature and the Office of the Governor as required by statute and it reported accurate information for two of the three performance measures that auditors tested. However, auditors could not determine the accuracy of the Agency’s reported results for the third performance measure tested because the Agency did not consistently record case closed dates in accordance with its policy.
The Agency had written policies and procedures to review its fees and establish a budget to ensure that the Agency collected sufficient revenue to cover its operational costs. In addition, the Agency’s governing board reviewed and approved the fiscal year 2016 and 2017 proposed budgets as required by statute.
The Agency obtained the approval of its governing board for all 13 administrative penalties tested, however, it did not consistently follow its policies. Specifically:
- For 6 (46.2 percent) of 13 penalties tested, the Agency did not use the penalty assessment tool it developed as a way to demonstrate its compliance with statutory requirements.
- For 3 (23.1 percent) of 13 penalties tested, the Agency did not document executive management review and final approval of the penalty as required by Agency policies and procedures.
The Agency established information technology system controls to help ensure the reliability of its financial accounting data and most of its performance measure reporting data. However, the Agency should strengthen its information technology controls to ensure the reliability of its information.
Graphics, Media, Supporting documents