An Audit Report on Performance Measures at the Texas Ethics Commission
April 2008
Report Number 08-029
Overall Conclusion
Two of the five key performance measures that the Texas Ethics Commission (Commission) reported for fiscal year 2007 are considered reliable because they were certified with qualification. A performance measure result is considered reliable if it is certified or certified with qualification. Results for one of the five measures cannot be considered reliable. Results for the two remaining measures could not be certified due to the sensitive nature of the information related to these measures.
Specifically:
- Two key performance measures-Number of Reports Logged Within Two Working Days of Receipt and Average Time (Working Days) to Answer Advisory Opinion Requests-were certified with qualification because the Commission's policies and procedures for calculating performance measures and reviewing results prior to reporting them in the Automated Budget and Evaluation System of Texas (ABEST) were inadequate. In addition, the Commission deviated from the definition in ABEST for Average Time (Working Days) to Answer Advisory Opinion Requests. The deviation caused less than a 5 percent difference between the actual measure result and the number reported in ABEST; therefore, the reported result is still considered reliable.
- One key measure-Percent of Advisory Opinion Requests Answered Within 60 Days-was inaccurate because the Commission deviated from the measure definition and methodology in ABEST. This resulted in the actual performance differing by more than 31 percent from the reported performance. In addition, the Commission did not have sufficient input and process controls or adequate policies and procedures to ensure that the measure results would be accurately calculated and reported in ABEST in the future.
- Factors prevented certification of two key measures-Number of Sworn Complaints Processed and Average Time (Working Days) to Respond to Sworn Complaints-because weaknesses exist in the collection, calculation, review, and reporting of these performance measures. For example, the Commission deviated from the measures' definitions and calculation methodologies. Given the limited objectives of the audit, the weaknesses identified, and the sensitive nature of the information contained in the complaints, the State Auditor's Office did not review the detailed supporting documentation related to the complaints associated with these two measures.
Contact the SAO about this report.
Download the Acrobat version of this report. (.pdf)
If you prefer an HTML version, follow this link to an Adobe site which converts PDF files to HTML.