A Performance Audit
An Audit Report on The Texas Board of Architectural Examiners: A Self-directed, Semi-independent Agency
The Texas Board of Architectural Examiners (Board) established controls to ensure the accuracy of financial data that it is required to report. In addition, it had an established process for setting fees and assessing administrative penalties. However, it should improve controls over its performance data to ensure that it reports that information accurately.
The Board complied with its statutorily required self-directed, semi-independent (SDSI) reporting requirements and submitted its report for fiscal year 2016 in a timely manner and to the appropriate parties. However, it should improve controls to ensure that it includes all required information and accurately reports performance measure results. While the Board reported two quarterly performance measures tested accurately, it reported inaccurate results for two performance measures tested in its annual SDSI report for fiscal year 2016.
The Board had an adequate process for establishing its fees and has not raised its fees in 12 years. Further, it accurately calculated and collected fees in compliance with its rules and transferred all required funds to the General Revenue Fund. However, it had not established procedures to monitor its reserve fund balance as required by its policies.
The Board Established Processes and Controls to Ensure the Accuracy and Completeness of Its Financial Data
The Board had effective financial processes and controls over financial reporting to help ensure that it accurately reported key financial statement balances. However, the Board should strengthen certain aspects of its financial reconciliation process to ensure the continued accuracy of its financial information.
The Board Generally Complied with SDSI Reporting Requirements; However, It Should Improve Controls Over Its Performance Measure Reporting
Overall, the Board complied with most self-directed, semi-independent (SDSI) reporting requirements of Texas Government Code, Section 472.104 (see text box for additional information). However, it did not include certain required information and reported inaccurate results for two performance measures tested.
Number of Registrants by Type and Status
The Board reported inaccurate results for the Number of Registrants by Type and Status performance measure in its fiscal year 2016 annual SDSI report. Total registrants are reported for each of the Board’s registrant types and, according to Board policies, should include (1) business registrants that are active or pending and (2) individual registrants. However, the Board did not include all business registrants in its calculation, and it did not extract the data used to support the number of active and pending business registrants in a timely manner.
Average Time for Complaint Resolution
The Board reported inaccurate results for the Average Time for Complaint Resolution performance measure in its fiscal year 2016 annual SDSI report because it did not include all complaints in its calculation. The Board understated the number of days to resolve a complaint in the fiscal year 2016 annual SDSI report by 16 days (10 percent). The average time for complaint resolution the Board reported was 149 days, but it should have reported 165 days.
The Board Had a Process for Establishing Its Fees and Accurately Calculated and Collected Fees in Compliance With Its Rules; However, It Should Develop Procedures for Monitoring Its Fund Balance as Required
Overall, the Board had an established process for setting its fees, collected those fees in accordance with its approved fee schedule, and transferred its required SDSI fees. In addition, it had documented policies and procedures to establish its budgets, and its governing board approved those budgets in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 as required by Texas Government Code, Chapter 472. The Board also ensured that it had the minimum fund balance needed to maintain its operations as required by its policy. However, it did not comply with certain requirements in its fund balance policy.
The Board Assessed Administrative Penalties Consistently and Transferred Penalties Collected as Required
Penalty Assessments.The Board had a documented process to assess administrative penalties consistently and in compliance with its statutory requirements. Auditors tested 27 administrative penalties totaling $83,300 that the Board assessed from September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2017. For all 27 penalties tested, the Board had support showing that it assessed the penalties in a consistent manner and in compliance with statute and Board policy.
Transfers to General Revenue.The Board transferred $289,044 in administrative penalties and professional fees collected in fiscal year 2016 to the State’s General Revenue Fund as required by statute.
The Board Had Adequate Information Technology System Controls in Place to Ensure the Reliability of Financial and Performance Data
Auditors performed a limited review of general and application controls over TBAsE, the information technology system the Board uses to track licensing and enforcement information. The controls reviewed were adequate to ensure that the information in TBAsE was complete, accurate, and reliable for the purposes of this audit. However, the Board should improve certain controls over change management.
Graphics, Media, Supporting documents