Mr. BLOOM. Well, I think the main problem is that the bureaus have been slow in implementing our recommendations. Very often we go back to do a follow-up audit several years later and we find that a recommendation that was made two, three, four years, five years ago still has not been implemented. Mr. YATES. What is the nature of the recommendation that you would have made in one of those cases? Can you give us an example? Mr. BLOOM. A recommendation to establish proper controls to safeguard assets, recommendations to establish proper accountability to improve procurement practices. A lot of the recommendations do involve economies in the procurement process. IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. YATES. Is that responsibility to implement what you suggest that of the Assistant Secretary's Office? Mr. BLOOM. The main responsibility is that of the bureaus. Mr. BLOOM. That's right. The recommendations are made to the bureaus. Mr. VENTURA. The recommendations are tracked in our office. Mr. YATES. You track them, but apparently you're not tracking them then. Mr. VENTURA. We work with the IG to track them. What we do is make the recommendations to the bureaus. There may be as many as a hundred or several hundred at one time. But currently there are only 65 audits that are over six months past due. Mr. YATES. Then why would he say hundreds? Mr. VENTURA. We may be tracking hundreds at one time. Mr. BLOOM. When I say hundreds, I don't mean to imply that these are past due. These are audits that are in the tracking process to ensure that the bureaus have implemented the recommendations. Mr. YATES. Well, this is from your audit report dated January 1988. "We found that actions were not taken to ensure." Who are you talking about here? Are you talking about Mr. Ventura's office? Mr. BLOOM. Primarily the bureaus. Mr. YATES. "Actions were not taken to establish an effective system for implementation of corrective actions. Two, responded to each audit report in a timely manner. Three, met the agreed on implementation target dates. We also found the territorial governments had not taken actions. "Specifically," you say, "our follow-up reviews of 50 internal audit reports showed that the bureaus did not fully implement 136 out of 424 recommendations reviewed, or 32 percent. The percentage of non-implementation per bureau or office range from 8 to 57 percent with four bureaus exceeding 33 percent, Bur Rec, BIA, GS and NPS." They're the biggest ones, aren't they? Mr. BLOOM. Among the biggest. Mr. YATES. Yes, they're among the biggest. Then you say, "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NPS and MMS had not established accounts receivable in the accounting records for all external audit related debt." And you have, "123 audit reports showed the territorial governments did not fully implement 659 of 1,224 recommendations, or 54 percent.' Well, what can we do to get a better record? Your conclusion is there was a lack of emphasis on-I'm quoting from the report again. "We concluded there was a lack of emphasis on the importance of audit follow-up by top management officials within the Department," is what you are saying. You don't like me to say that in front of the officials. Mr. BLOOM. Well, again we are referring mainly to the individual bureaus. But let me say that we have taken some action— Mr. YATES. But you're not. You're not saying that. You are saying "top management officials within the Department," not within the bureaus. Mr. BLOOM. Well, including the assistant secretaries who have the bureaus under them. Mr. YATES. Right. Mr. BLOOM. Let me say that we have taken some actions. See, the main problem has always been that the bureaus have come back and agreed with the recommendations and have said, yes, we're going to do it. The auditors go out and find that, no, they haven't taken the action. So, what we have done in the IG's shop, in working with Mr. Ventura's office, is to form a little group that goes out and does follow-up reviews of prior audits and recommendations. And we determine whether they have or have not. And if they have not implemented those recommendations, we will write them up a second time. Mr. VENTURA. Mr. Chairman, I would add that that report is dated January of 1988. I came on board in December of 1987, and as Mr. Bloom has suggested, since that point we have made many efforts, including forming a group within the Office of the Secretary to address this specific issue. Mr. YATES. All right. Now that you are addressing it, what happens? Mr. BLOOM. The main problems are in the territories- Mr. VENTURA. The main problems are in one assistant secretaryship. Mr. YATES. Not really. Mr. VENTURA. If you look at the dollar amounts that is the case. Mr. YATES. Well, that may be, but the numbers-perhaps you're right about dollar amounts. But numbers of audits which are pending are still pretty substantial. Mr. VENTURA. Again, I would emphasize that there are only 65 at this point in time that are six months past due. Mr. YATES. Only 65 in the whole Department? Mr. VENTURA. That's my understanding. Mr. YATES. That's not too bad then, is it? Mr. VENTURA. That's what I'm saying. We are making considerable progress. Mr. BLOOM. That is as far as getting the tracking process going. Mr. YATES. How do I reconcile this statement by Mr. Ventura with your agreement with your previous statement about hundreds of audits? Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, may I straighten this out, if I may? I'm the Inspector General. Mr. YATES. Okay. AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. RICHARDS. What we are talking about is hundreds of recommendations. Each audit may contain as many as 25 recommendations, findings, recommendations for improvement. And 65 audits may contain hundreds of recommendations. Mr. YATES. By the IG? Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir, recommendations to the bureaus as to how to improve their management. Once they agree to implement our recommendations, then they are reported to the assistant secretary for PBA who tracks them on his computerized system. What was lacking before and now what we are doing with the assistant secretary and the principal deputy under secretary is going out and following up to see if the bureaus actually have lived up to their promise to implement recommendations. And if they haven't, the assistant secretary has the wherewithal, as does the under secretary, as chief managers of the Department to tell those bureaus that they better shape up or they will answer to management. That is how we bring this into line. The IG can't do that, but the assistant secretary has formed a group called the audit follow-up group composed of himself, the principal deputy under secretary and myself to get this mess straightened out, and he is doing a very good job. Mr. YATES. Well, let the record show that he has received a commendation. [Laughter.] Two gold stars in your personnel folder. But that 65 with hundreds. When will you be able to tell uswell, you keep getting these audits every day, don't you? Mr. VENTURA. That's correct. I wouldn't say every day, but we get them with regularity. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we will ever get to a position where there will be no audits or no backlog. That is simply impossible. CONCLUDING REMARKS Mr. YATES. Tell me about your budget. Is it adequate for your purposes? Mr. VENTURA. I believe it is. Mr. YATES. You don't have any more money in any of your operations that you want other than those that you've requested? Mr. VENTURA. No, not other than those that we have requested. Mr. YATES. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I will have additional questions for you for the record. Mr. VENTURA. Thank you, Mr. Yates. [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:] 84-150 0-88-25 Departmental Congressional and Legislative Affairs Resources Question: Provide for the record a table showing for each agency and bureau in the Department the staff and dollars associated with Congressional and Legislative Affairs for FY 1987, FY 1988 and FY 1989. Departmental Public Affairs Resources Question: Provide for the record a table showing for each agency and bureau in the Department the staff and dollars associated with the Public Affairs activity for FY 1987, FY 1988 and FY 1989. * Amounts for BOM include Technical Information activities as a result of the reorganization |