Montana. Legislature. Legislative Audit Division.
Big game drawing system, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks : performance audit follow-up (Volume 1998) online
. (page 1 of 2)
Online Library → Montana. Legislature. Legislative Audit Division → Big game drawing system, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks : performance audit follow-up (Volume 1998) → online text (page 1 of 2)
Font size
S Montana •
354.349 Legislative Audit
L72b<>d Division
1998 Big game drawing
system* Department
of Fish* Waldlife
and Parks
Legislative Audit Division
State of Montana
Report to the Legislature
January 1998 Performance Audit Follow-up
Big Game Drawing System
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
The original audit report contained 16 recommendations to improve
drawing operations. Recommendations related to:
*- Improving compliance procedures.
> Bettering program administration.
*â– Strengthening general and application controls.
A*4
'i^^E
y'
nc
•^•*-
i % ^
l?Rtf^OCUMFNf« ".til LECTION
â– gtJNTANA glAft uitJKARY
HELENA. MCJiMiAiMM o9620
97SP-77
Direct comments/inquiries to:
Legislative Audit Division
Room 135, State Capitol
PO Box 201705
Helena MT 59620-1705
HOV 7 2002
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
3 0864 0010 3606 3
PERFORMANCE AUDITS
Performance audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Division are designed to assess state
government operations. From the audit work, a determination is made as to whether agencies
and programs are accomplishing their purposes, and whether they can do so with greater
efficiency and economy. In performing the audit work, the audit staff uses audit standards set
forth by the United States General Accounting Office.
Members of the performance audit staff hold degrees in disciplines appropriate to the audit
process. Areas of expertise include business and public administration, statistics, economics,
computer science, communications, and engineering.
Performance audits are performed at the request of the Legislative Audit Committee which is a
bicameral and bipartisan standing committee of the Montana Legislature. The committee
consists of six members of the Senate and six members of the House of Representatives.
MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
Senator Linda Nelson, Chairman
Representative Bruce Simon, Vice Chairman
Senator Sue Banlett
Representative Beverly Barnhart
Senator Reiny Jabs
Representative Ernest Bergsagel
Senator Tom Keating
Representative A. R. "Toni" Hagener
Senator Ken Miller
Representative Bob Keenan
Senator Fred VanValkenburg
Representative Roben Pavlovich
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION
Scott A. Seacat, Legislative Auditor /^^^^^\ Deputy Legislative Auditors:
John W. Northey, Legal Counsel ra^^^Sl ^â„¢ Pellegrini, Performance Audit
Tori Hunthausen, IT & Operations Manager ^^^^^^ ^^"^^^ Gillett, Financial-Compliance Audit
Januaiy 1998
The Legislative Audit Committee
of the Montana State Legislature
This is our performance audit follow-up of the Big Game Drawing System administered
by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. While some recommendations are not
implemented, we found most are implemented or are being implemented. Summary
information from the original repon is included in Appendix A.
We wish to express our appreciation to the staff of the department for their cooperation
and assistance during our follow-up work.
Respectfully submitted.
Scott A. Seacat
Legislative Auditor
Room 135, State Capitol Building PO Box 201705 Helena, MT 59620-1705
Phone (406) 444-3 122 FAX (406) 444-9784 E-Mail [email protected]
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
Montana State Library
http://www.archive.org/details/biggamedrawingsy1998mont
Legislative Audit Division
Performance Audit Follow-up
Big Game Drawing System
Department Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Member of the audit staff involved in this audit was Mary Zednick.
Table of Contents
List of Tables ii
Administrative Officials iii
Introduction 1
Follow-up Results 1
Introduction 3
Procedures Which Ensure Sportsmen Compliance 3
Program Administration 4
Big Game Drawing Process 6
General Controls 7
Application Controls 9
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 15
1995 Audit Report Summary S-1
Chapter I - Introduction
Chapter II - Implementa-
tion Status
Agency Response
Appendix A
Page i
List of Tables
Table 1 Recommendation Status Page 1
Page ii
Administrative Officials
Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks
Administration and
Finance Division
Licensing/Data Processing
Bureau
Pat Graham, Director
Dave Mott, Administrator
Barney Benkelman, Chief
Page iii
Chapter I - Introduction
Introduction
We conducted a follow-up review of the performance audit of the
Big Game Drawing System (94P-46). Our primary objective was to
determine the implementation status of recommendations made in the
October 1995 audit report. To meet our objective we performed the
following audit steps:
Follow-up Results
Reviewed available computer reports.
Interviewed department and program management and staff.
Reviewed Access Control Facility 2 (ACF2) rules.
Reviewed applicable computer coding.
The original audit report contained 16 recommendations to improve
the Big Game Drawing System operations. As table 1 shows, the
department fully implemented 9 of the recommendations contained
in our report.
Table 1
Recommendation Status
Implemented
Being Implemented
Partially Implemented
Not Implemented
Not Applicable
Total
9
3
1
2
16
Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division.
Chapter II discusses the implementation status for each recommenda-
tion. The report summary from the original report is provided as
Appendix A. This summary outlines the original issues and audit
recommendations .
Page 1
Page 2
Introduction
Chapter II - Implementation Status
The following sections provide information on the implementation
status of the recommendations made in the original report. The
discussion is categorized into each area where recommendations
were made. These areas include:
Procedures Which
Ensure Sportsmen
Compliance
— Procedures which ensure sportsmen compliance.
— Program administration.
— General and application controls.
Recommendation #1
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
electronically compare the revoked privilege information on
LED's database to the Big Game Drawing System application
information prior to the drawings and hunting seasons.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. Programming was written
to compare the Law Enforcement Division's revoked privilege
information to the Big Game Drawing System database. (A person
whose license privileges are forfeited/revoked may not apply for a
hunting, fishing, or trapping license or permit during the period
when license privileges are revoked.) Information on the systems
was compared prior to the 1997 deer, elk and antelope drawings.
Birth dates, name, and addressees were compared. Results of the
comparison showed 43 people with revoked privileges applied for
special licenses/permits. LED staff verified the applicants'
privileges were revoked. The applicants were then removed from
the big game drawing database prior to the drawings.
Recommendation #2
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
modify procedures to produce a more effective means of
reviewing landowner preference claims.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is being implemented but there are no
established time frames for implementation. Law Enforcement
Page 3
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Division is polling the captains, sergeants, and game wardens to
determine what information is needed to allow wardens to verify the
applicant claiming landowner preference owns the land. The
appropriate game warden would investigate those applicants whose
ownership claim is questionable.
Once the poll is completed. Licensing staff will have to determine
how that information can be gathered and input to the big game
drawing database.
Program Administration RecQmnign(>ation <y3
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks seek
legislative clarification with respect to the department's authority
to:
A. Conduct a landowner preference for deer and antelope
permits; and
B. Process applications of those seeking landowner preference
differently than those of the general public.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is not implemented. During the audit the
department did not entirely concur with the recommendation. In the
response to the original audit, department officials stated they
discussed landowner preference for deer and antelope when legisla-
tion for landowner preference for elk was introduced. The depart-
ment indicated both houses of the legislature intended for the deer
and antelope preference to continue. The department's response to
the original audit stated "The Department and FWP Commission will
further analyze the need for further legislative action."
Since issuance of the Big Game Drawing System audit report,
department officials considered the need to seek legislative clarifi-
cation. The Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission and depanment
management were advised by department legal staff that the
commission and department have the authority to create preferences
by rule in the big game drawings and, therefore, legislative
clarification is not needed. We still believe the depanment adopted
Page 4
Chapter II - Implementation Status
the administrative rule for deer and antelope landowner preference
without a specific statutory basis.
At the time of the original audit, administrative rules stated the
department could accept corrections on applications of those seeking
landowner preference. These rules have not been changed. We still
believe the department needs statutory authority to process
landowners' applications differently than nonlandowners. Again,
department legal staff advised the commission and department
management the two groups have legal authority to determine by
rule, categories or types of errors the department will correct for
applicants in their big game drawing applications.
Recommendation #4
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
either:
A. Comply with the administrative rule prohibiting corrections
or changes to applications, or
B. Modify administrative rule to reflect current practices and
take measures to ensure consistency of its application
correction service.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. In March 1996, the
department modified the administrative rules to reflect the practice
of making some corrections to special license applications. A
procedure manual was developed detailing the kinds of corrections
which can be made. The corrections include:
1 . Adding hunter safety certification numbers.
2. Moving valid district choices up to replace invalid choices.
3. Eliminating species choices on those applications that are shon
money when the shortfall is the amount for that species.
4. Adjusting party applications to insure party consistency.
Page 5
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Big Game Drawing Recommendation #5
Process ^^ recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Pariis
document procedures for the Big Game Drawing System process.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is being implemented. The department is in
the process of writing a procedures manual for the drawing processes
for nonresident combination licenses and special drawing licenses.
The manual currently includes procedures addressing:
— application dates and deadlines,
— batching and keying applications,
check and money handling,
edit correction,
— landowner verification,
— duplicate applications,
applications without sufficient funds,
party validation, and
— review of the seven year wait report.
Examples of forms used and reports generated are included in the
manual.
Recommendation #6
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
modify procedures so staff no longer handle applications twice
when checking for a certificate of competency for nonresidents
between the age of 12 and 18.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. If provided by the appli-
cant, licensing staff attach the nonresident hunter education certifi-
cate to the back of the application. The certificate number or issuing
state, if there is no number, is written on the front of the application
and keypunched into the system. An edit occurs when nothing is
entered for that field. Staff review the application to determine why
the field was empty and either correct the error by filling in the
Page 6
Chapter II - Implementation Status
appropriate number or state name, or the application is considered in
error and removed from the database.
Reeommendation #7
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks:
A. Modify the Seven Year Restriction Report to include
additional applicant information; and
B. Pursue methods to simplify the review process required for
validating parties.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. The Seven Year Restriction
Report now includes the name and address of the person applying for
the moose, sheep or goat license in the current year and the name,
address and year of the matched person. Staff no longer have to
search through microfiche from previous years to find the matched
person.
An additional Party Validation Error Report was created which
groups records by batch and pany record. Staff now know which
batch to review when a party is in error.
General Controls Recommendation #8
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
establish, test and document a formal disaster recovery plan for
the Big Game Drawing System.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is not implemented. The Department of
Administration (Dof A) scheduled a test of the Big Game Drawing
System in May 1997 but Dof A did not test the system. FWP
planned to use the test to help design and document FWP's formal
disaster recovery plan. Since that time, FWP staff responsible for
establishing, testing and documenting a formal disaster recovery plan
left the department before working on a plan. Current staff have not
had time to implement this recommendation.
Page 7
Chapter II - Implementation Status
The automated licensing system (ALS) approved by the 1997
Legislature will eventually include the big game drawing. The
request for proposal for ALS development requires the contractor to
conduct at least aimual disaster recovery drills. In the interim,
department staff have been assigned continued examination and
coordination of disaster recovery work.
Recommendation #9
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
assign the duties of security officer to an employee who is not a
department mainframe applications programmer.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. The person now assigned
security officer duties is responsible for the department's network
operating systems. The person has limited access to the mainframe
computer and is only used as a mainframe programmer in case of an
emergency.
Recommendation #10
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
establish procedures:
A. For an independent review of ACF2 reports.
B. To ensure a timely, comprehensive review of ACT2 reports.
Implementation Status
This recommendation Is no longer applicable. Since issuance of
the original report, FWP separated the duties of the security officer
and mainframe programmers, removing an organizational risk. We
also re-evaluated the purpose of the second review and whether
reviewing ACF2 reports provides adequate control over security
officer activities. Our evaluation showed there is no effective way to
track security officer activities. ACF2 reports will not show if a
security officer changed a data set or program for personal gain.
Pages
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Since this issue applies to all agencies, the Legislative Audit Division
will explore this further in its annual Central Reviews audit. At that
time, procedures will be established for auditors to follow when
examining the risks associated with individual agency mainframe
computer applications and the location of security officer position
within each agency.
Recommendation #11
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks log
access by department technical support staff and the bureau chief
to the on-line error correction and address change screens.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. Access by department
technical support staff and the bureau chief is now logged when they
use the on-line correction and address change screens.
Recommendation #12
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
develop formal policies and procedures for internal evaluations
of security in accordance with state law.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is being implemented. The bureau chief has
developed general categories for needed policies, such as docu-
mentation, software, hardware, asset management, and forms
management. Data processing staff have commented on those
categories and drafts are being written.
Application Controls Recommendation #13
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
rectify the problem of the coding not identifying invalid
prerequisite elk license numbers.
Page 9
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. Until the applicable coding
was found a supplementary program was written which checked for
the appropriate prerequisite elk license numbers. Prior to the 1997
deer, elk and antelope drawing the applicable coding was found and
modified so the main program now checks for appropriate numbers.
Recommendation #14
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
establish a formal system for logging permits and licenses in and
out of the cage and the use of the permits or licenses - printed,
voided, used as samples, etc.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. A notebook was created
containing a page for each type of drawing license/permit issued.
Each page shows the sequence numbers of the forms initially put into
the vault. The person taking the licenses/permits/ tags out of the
vault indicates on the page:
the date the forms were removed,
~ the quantity removed,
— the sequence number of the forms, and
- how the forms were used (printed for a drawing, voided, used
as samples, etc.).
Recommendation #15
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
update documentation of the Big Game Drawing System
computer application to reflect the current environment.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is partially implemented. Some changes
were made to program narratives to reflect the current environment,
but more changes are needed. For example, deer and elk narratives
still do not address landowner preference.
Page 10
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Recommendation ffU
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
develop a formal system to document, test/review and approve
enhancements to the Big Game Drawing System.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. Two procedures are used to
document changes to the Big Game Drawing System. Electronic
mail is used for requests with minor changes to the system (requests
for yearly table updates, mailing label printing, etc.). The request
and request's resolution, along with time and date information, are
printed and filed for reference.
An enhancement request form is used for larger enhancements
(legislative mandates, major program changes, etc). This form
requires:
1 . The signature of the person requesting the enhancement and
date requested.
2. The signature of the person completing the enhancement and the
date completed.
3. The signature of the person verifying the enhancement was
completed and the date verified.
Page 11
Page 12
Agency Response
Page 13
Page 14
Hetei
P. O. Box 200701
'na, MT 59620-0701
(406)444-3186
FAX:406-444-4952
Ref:PG0691.97
December 19. 1997
Jim Pelligrini
Deputy Legislative Auditor
Room 135
State Capitol Building
Helena, MT 59620
Dear Mr. Pelligrini:
Thank you for the thorough manner in which the Legislative Auditor's office conducted the original audit
of the Big Game Drawing System, as well as the subsequent follow-up. In addition, we wanted to express
appreciation for your recognition of our commitment to the implementation of your original
recommendations. For those recommendations which you have classified as implemented, in progress (13
of 16), FWP will continue to consider methods for improvement or pursue completion. This response will
focus on those recommendations that you have classified as not implemented.
Recommendation ff 3
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks seek legislative clarification with respect to
the department's authority to:
L Conduct a landowner preference for deer and antelope permits, and
2. Process applications of those seeking landowner preference differendy than those of the
general public.
Agency Response
This is an issue on which our legal staffs disagree. However, the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission
directed the department to implement a comprehensive statewide preference system for the year 200 1 . This
action will require legislative action by the 1999 legislative session. The department will consider
clarifying the statutes to address this audit recommendation at that time.
Recommendation #8
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks establish, test, and document a formal disaster
recovery plan for the Big Game Drawing System.
Agency Response
Since the original audit report, some preliminary work was done in conjunction with the Information
Services Division (ISD) at the Department of Administration. Any newly created plan for the existing
system would be "interim" because an automated licensing project is underway. This project will
eventually replace the Big Game drawing system. Included within the RFP is a requirement for disaster
recovery planning and testing on the part of the contractor.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
^^AV^fS Vir^ VAr-^ Page 15
Patrick J. Graham
Director
Appendix A
1995 Audit Report Summary
Introduction
Sportsmen wishing to hunt in Montana receive big game hunting
licenses and permits through: 1) over-the-counter purchases, and 2)
special random drawings. Each year the Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks (FWP) conducts random drawings for hunting
licenses and permits for moose, sheep, mountain goat, deer, elk and
antelope. This performance audit examined the Big Game Drawing
System. The primary objective of this audit was to determine the
fairness of the big game permit and license drawing process.
Background
Permits and licenses issued through the Big Game Drawing System
must be used in conjunction with a valid resident conservation or
sportsman license, or nonresident conservation or combination
license. To obtain an elk permit through the annual drawing a
resident also needs a valid prerequisite elk license.
Applications Submitted to
FWP
In 1994 over 100,000 people submitted applications for moose,
sheep, goat, deer, elk and antelope licenses and permits.
Approximately 200,000 individual species applications were
submitted for 106,799 licenses or permits.
Applications Processed for
Inclusion in Computer
Database
Computer programs are used to conduct the big game drawings.
The Special Licensing Section, Licensing and Data Processing
Bureau, FWP processes applications for the big game drawings. A
number of manual edits are performed prior to inputting the
information into the computer. Before the database is updated, the
application information is processed through a number of drawing
system edits. If the errors cannot be corrected by section staff the
application information is put in a separate file and the applicant is
refunded a portion of the application fee. Those applications which
are corrected and/or error free are uploaded to the database.
Page S-1
1995 Audit Report Summary
Game Limits Placed on
Certain Applicants
Nonresidents are limited to, but not guaranteed, 10 percent of a
district quota. Up to 15 percent of elk, antelope, deer and deer B
permits in each hunting district are available for residents and
nonresidents claiming landowner preference.
354.349 Legislative Audit
L72b<>d Division
1998 Big game drawing
system* Department
of Fish* Waldlife
and Parks
Legislative Audit Division
State of Montana
Report to the Legislature
January 1998 Performance Audit Follow-up
Big Game Drawing System
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
The original audit report contained 16 recommendations to improve
drawing operations. Recommendations related to:
*- Improving compliance procedures.
> Bettering program administration.
*â– Strengthening general and application controls.
A*4
'i^^E
y'
nc
•^•*-
i % ^
l?Rtf^OCUMFNf« ".til LECTION
â– gtJNTANA glAft uitJKARY
HELENA. MCJiMiAiMM o9620
97SP-77
Direct comments/inquiries to:
Legislative Audit Division
Room 135, State Capitol
PO Box 201705
Helena MT 59620-1705
HOV 7 2002
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
3 0864 0010 3606 3
PERFORMANCE AUDITS
Performance audits conducted by the Legislative Audit Division are designed to assess state
government operations. From the audit work, a determination is made as to whether agencies
and programs are accomplishing their purposes, and whether they can do so with greater
efficiency and economy. In performing the audit work, the audit staff uses audit standards set
forth by the United States General Accounting Office.
Members of the performance audit staff hold degrees in disciplines appropriate to the audit
process. Areas of expertise include business and public administration, statistics, economics,
computer science, communications, and engineering.
Performance audits are performed at the request of the Legislative Audit Committee which is a
bicameral and bipartisan standing committee of the Montana Legislature. The committee
consists of six members of the Senate and six members of the House of Representatives.
MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE
Senator Linda Nelson, Chairman
Representative Bruce Simon, Vice Chairman
Senator Sue Banlett
Representative Beverly Barnhart
Senator Reiny Jabs
Representative Ernest Bergsagel
Senator Tom Keating
Representative A. R. "Toni" Hagener
Senator Ken Miller
Representative Bob Keenan
Senator Fred VanValkenburg
Representative Roben Pavlovich
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION
Scott A. Seacat, Legislative Auditor /^^^^^\ Deputy Legislative Auditors:
John W. Northey, Legal Counsel ra^^^Sl ^â„¢ Pellegrini, Performance Audit
Tori Hunthausen, IT & Operations Manager ^^^^^^ ^^"^^^ Gillett, Financial-Compliance Audit
Januaiy 1998
The Legislative Audit Committee
of the Montana State Legislature
This is our performance audit follow-up of the Big Game Drawing System administered
by the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. While some recommendations are not
implemented, we found most are implemented or are being implemented. Summary
information from the original repon is included in Appendix A.
We wish to express our appreciation to the staff of the department for their cooperation
and assistance during our follow-up work.
Respectfully submitted.
Scott A. Seacat
Legislative Auditor
Room 135, State Capitol Building PO Box 201705 Helena, MT 59620-1705
Phone (406) 444-3 122 FAX (406) 444-9784 E-Mail [email protected]
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
Montana State Library
http://www.archive.org/details/biggamedrawingsy1998mont
Legislative Audit Division
Performance Audit Follow-up
Big Game Drawing System
Department Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Member of the audit staff involved in this audit was Mary Zednick.
Table of Contents
List of Tables ii
Administrative Officials iii
Introduction 1
Follow-up Results 1
Introduction 3
Procedures Which Ensure Sportsmen Compliance 3
Program Administration 4
Big Game Drawing Process 6
General Controls 7
Application Controls 9
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 15
1995 Audit Report Summary S-1
Chapter I - Introduction
Chapter II - Implementa-
tion Status
Agency Response
Appendix A
Page i
List of Tables
Table 1 Recommendation Status Page 1
Page ii
Administrative Officials
Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks
Administration and
Finance Division
Licensing/Data Processing
Bureau
Pat Graham, Director
Dave Mott, Administrator
Barney Benkelman, Chief
Page iii
Chapter I - Introduction
Introduction
We conducted a follow-up review of the performance audit of the
Big Game Drawing System (94P-46). Our primary objective was to
determine the implementation status of recommendations made in the
October 1995 audit report. To meet our objective we performed the
following audit steps:
Follow-up Results
Reviewed available computer reports.
Interviewed department and program management and staff.
Reviewed Access Control Facility 2 (ACF2) rules.
Reviewed applicable computer coding.
The original audit report contained 16 recommendations to improve
the Big Game Drawing System operations. As table 1 shows, the
department fully implemented 9 of the recommendations contained
in our report.
Table 1
Recommendation Status
Implemented
Being Implemented
Partially Implemented
Not Implemented
Not Applicable
Total
9
3
1
2
16
Source: Compiled by the Legislative Audit Division.
Chapter II discusses the implementation status for each recommenda-
tion. The report summary from the original report is provided as
Appendix A. This summary outlines the original issues and audit
recommendations .
Page 1
Page 2
Introduction
Chapter II - Implementation Status
The following sections provide information on the implementation
status of the recommendations made in the original report. The
discussion is categorized into each area where recommendations
were made. These areas include:
Procedures Which
Ensure Sportsmen
Compliance
— Procedures which ensure sportsmen compliance.
— Program administration.
— General and application controls.
Recommendation #1
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
electronically compare the revoked privilege information on
LED's database to the Big Game Drawing System application
information prior to the drawings and hunting seasons.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. Programming was written
to compare the Law Enforcement Division's revoked privilege
information to the Big Game Drawing System database. (A person
whose license privileges are forfeited/revoked may not apply for a
hunting, fishing, or trapping license or permit during the period
when license privileges are revoked.) Information on the systems
was compared prior to the 1997 deer, elk and antelope drawings.
Birth dates, name, and addressees were compared. Results of the
comparison showed 43 people with revoked privileges applied for
special licenses/permits. LED staff verified the applicants'
privileges were revoked. The applicants were then removed from
the big game drawing database prior to the drawings.
Recommendation #2
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
modify procedures to produce a more effective means of
reviewing landowner preference claims.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is being implemented but there are no
established time frames for implementation. Law Enforcement
Page 3
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Division is polling the captains, sergeants, and game wardens to
determine what information is needed to allow wardens to verify the
applicant claiming landowner preference owns the land. The
appropriate game warden would investigate those applicants whose
ownership claim is questionable.
Once the poll is completed. Licensing staff will have to determine
how that information can be gathered and input to the big game
drawing database.
Program Administration RecQmnign(>ation <y3
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks seek
legislative clarification with respect to the department's authority
to:
A. Conduct a landowner preference for deer and antelope
permits; and
B. Process applications of those seeking landowner preference
differently than those of the general public.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is not implemented. During the audit the
department did not entirely concur with the recommendation. In the
response to the original audit, department officials stated they
discussed landowner preference for deer and antelope when legisla-
tion for landowner preference for elk was introduced. The depart-
ment indicated both houses of the legislature intended for the deer
and antelope preference to continue. The department's response to
the original audit stated "The Department and FWP Commission will
further analyze the need for further legislative action."
Since issuance of the Big Game Drawing System audit report,
department officials considered the need to seek legislative clarifi-
cation. The Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission and depanment
management were advised by department legal staff that the
commission and department have the authority to create preferences
by rule in the big game drawings and, therefore, legislative
clarification is not needed. We still believe the depanment adopted
Page 4
Chapter II - Implementation Status
the administrative rule for deer and antelope landowner preference
without a specific statutory basis.
At the time of the original audit, administrative rules stated the
department could accept corrections on applications of those seeking
landowner preference. These rules have not been changed. We still
believe the department needs statutory authority to process
landowners' applications differently than nonlandowners. Again,
department legal staff advised the commission and department
management the two groups have legal authority to determine by
rule, categories or types of errors the department will correct for
applicants in their big game drawing applications.
Recommendation #4
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
either:
A. Comply with the administrative rule prohibiting corrections
or changes to applications, or
B. Modify administrative rule to reflect current practices and
take measures to ensure consistency of its application
correction service.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. In March 1996, the
department modified the administrative rules to reflect the practice
of making some corrections to special license applications. A
procedure manual was developed detailing the kinds of corrections
which can be made. The corrections include:
1 . Adding hunter safety certification numbers.
2. Moving valid district choices up to replace invalid choices.
3. Eliminating species choices on those applications that are shon
money when the shortfall is the amount for that species.
4. Adjusting party applications to insure party consistency.
Page 5
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Big Game Drawing Recommendation #5
Process ^^ recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Pariis
document procedures for the Big Game Drawing System process.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is being implemented. The department is in
the process of writing a procedures manual for the drawing processes
for nonresident combination licenses and special drawing licenses.
The manual currently includes procedures addressing:
— application dates and deadlines,
— batching and keying applications,
check and money handling,
edit correction,
— landowner verification,
— duplicate applications,
applications without sufficient funds,
party validation, and
— review of the seven year wait report.
Examples of forms used and reports generated are included in the
manual.
Recommendation #6
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
modify procedures so staff no longer handle applications twice
when checking for a certificate of competency for nonresidents
between the age of 12 and 18.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. If provided by the appli-
cant, licensing staff attach the nonresident hunter education certifi-
cate to the back of the application. The certificate number or issuing
state, if there is no number, is written on the front of the application
and keypunched into the system. An edit occurs when nothing is
entered for that field. Staff review the application to determine why
the field was empty and either correct the error by filling in the
Page 6
Chapter II - Implementation Status
appropriate number or state name, or the application is considered in
error and removed from the database.
Reeommendation #7
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks:
A. Modify the Seven Year Restriction Report to include
additional applicant information; and
B. Pursue methods to simplify the review process required for
validating parties.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. The Seven Year Restriction
Report now includes the name and address of the person applying for
the moose, sheep or goat license in the current year and the name,
address and year of the matched person. Staff no longer have to
search through microfiche from previous years to find the matched
person.
An additional Party Validation Error Report was created which
groups records by batch and pany record. Staff now know which
batch to review when a party is in error.
General Controls Recommendation #8
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
establish, test and document a formal disaster recovery plan for
the Big Game Drawing System.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is not implemented. The Department of
Administration (Dof A) scheduled a test of the Big Game Drawing
System in May 1997 but Dof A did not test the system. FWP
planned to use the test to help design and document FWP's formal
disaster recovery plan. Since that time, FWP staff responsible for
establishing, testing and documenting a formal disaster recovery plan
left the department before working on a plan. Current staff have not
had time to implement this recommendation.
Page 7
Chapter II - Implementation Status
The automated licensing system (ALS) approved by the 1997
Legislature will eventually include the big game drawing. The
request for proposal for ALS development requires the contractor to
conduct at least aimual disaster recovery drills. In the interim,
department staff have been assigned continued examination and
coordination of disaster recovery work.
Recommendation #9
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
assign the duties of security officer to an employee who is not a
department mainframe applications programmer.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. The person now assigned
security officer duties is responsible for the department's network
operating systems. The person has limited access to the mainframe
computer and is only used as a mainframe programmer in case of an
emergency.
Recommendation #10
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
establish procedures:
A. For an independent review of ACF2 reports.
B. To ensure a timely, comprehensive review of ACT2 reports.
Implementation Status
This recommendation Is no longer applicable. Since issuance of
the original report, FWP separated the duties of the security officer
and mainframe programmers, removing an organizational risk. We
also re-evaluated the purpose of the second review and whether
reviewing ACF2 reports provides adequate control over security
officer activities. Our evaluation showed there is no effective way to
track security officer activities. ACF2 reports will not show if a
security officer changed a data set or program for personal gain.
Pages
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Since this issue applies to all agencies, the Legislative Audit Division
will explore this further in its annual Central Reviews audit. At that
time, procedures will be established for auditors to follow when
examining the risks associated with individual agency mainframe
computer applications and the location of security officer position
within each agency.
Recommendation #11
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks log
access by department technical support staff and the bureau chief
to the on-line error correction and address change screens.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. Access by department
technical support staff and the bureau chief is now logged when they
use the on-line correction and address change screens.
Recommendation #12
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
develop formal policies and procedures for internal evaluations
of security in accordance with state law.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is being implemented. The bureau chief has
developed general categories for needed policies, such as docu-
mentation, software, hardware, asset management, and forms
management. Data processing staff have commented on those
categories and drafts are being written.
Application Controls Recommendation #13
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
rectify the problem of the coding not identifying invalid
prerequisite elk license numbers.
Page 9
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. Until the applicable coding
was found a supplementary program was written which checked for
the appropriate prerequisite elk license numbers. Prior to the 1997
deer, elk and antelope drawing the applicable coding was found and
modified so the main program now checks for appropriate numbers.
Recommendation #14
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
establish a formal system for logging permits and licenses in and
out of the cage and the use of the permits or licenses - printed,
voided, used as samples, etc.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. A notebook was created
containing a page for each type of drawing license/permit issued.
Each page shows the sequence numbers of the forms initially put into
the vault. The person taking the licenses/permits/ tags out of the
vault indicates on the page:
the date the forms were removed,
~ the quantity removed,
— the sequence number of the forms, and
- how the forms were used (printed for a drawing, voided, used
as samples, etc.).
Recommendation #15
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
update documentation of the Big Game Drawing System
computer application to reflect the current environment.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is partially implemented. Some changes
were made to program narratives to reflect the current environment,
but more changes are needed. For example, deer and elk narratives
still do not address landowner preference.
Page 10
Chapter II - Implementation Status
Recommendation ffU
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
develop a formal system to document, test/review and approve
enhancements to the Big Game Drawing System.
Implementation Status
This recommendation is implemented. Two procedures are used to
document changes to the Big Game Drawing System. Electronic
mail is used for requests with minor changes to the system (requests
for yearly table updates, mailing label printing, etc.). The request
and request's resolution, along with time and date information, are
printed and filed for reference.
An enhancement request form is used for larger enhancements
(legislative mandates, major program changes, etc). This form
requires:
1 . The signature of the person requesting the enhancement and
date requested.
2. The signature of the person completing the enhancement and the
date completed.
3. The signature of the person verifying the enhancement was
completed and the date verified.
Page 11
Page 12
Agency Response
Page 13
Page 14
Hetei
P. O. Box 200701
'na, MT 59620-0701
(406)444-3186
FAX:406-444-4952
Ref:PG0691.97
December 19. 1997
Jim Pelligrini
Deputy Legislative Auditor
Room 135
State Capitol Building
Helena, MT 59620
Dear Mr. Pelligrini:
Thank you for the thorough manner in which the Legislative Auditor's office conducted the original audit
of the Big Game Drawing System, as well as the subsequent follow-up. In addition, we wanted to express
appreciation for your recognition of our commitment to the implementation of your original
recommendations. For those recommendations which you have classified as implemented, in progress (13
of 16), FWP will continue to consider methods for improvement or pursue completion. This response will
focus on those recommendations that you have classified as not implemented.
Recommendation ff 3
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks seek legislative clarification with respect to
the department's authority to:
L Conduct a landowner preference for deer and antelope permits, and
2. Process applications of those seeking landowner preference differendy than those of the
general public.
Agency Response
This is an issue on which our legal staffs disagree. However, the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission
directed the department to implement a comprehensive statewide preference system for the year 200 1 . This
action will require legislative action by the 1999 legislative session. The department will consider
clarifying the statutes to address this audit recommendation at that time.
Recommendation #8
We recommend the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks establish, test, and document a formal disaster
recovery plan for the Big Game Drawing System.
Agency Response
Since the original audit report, some preliminary work was done in conjunction with the Information
Services Division (ISD) at the Department of Administration. Any newly created plan for the existing
system would be "interim" because an automated licensing project is underway. This project will
eventually replace the Big Game drawing system. Included within the RFP is a requirement for disaster
recovery planning and testing on the part of the contractor.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
^^AV^fS Vir^ VAr-^ Page 15
Patrick J. Graham
Director
Appendix A
1995 Audit Report Summary
Introduction
Sportsmen wishing to hunt in Montana receive big game hunting
licenses and permits through: 1) over-the-counter purchases, and 2)
special random drawings. Each year the Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks (FWP) conducts random drawings for hunting
licenses and permits for moose, sheep, mountain goat, deer, elk and
antelope. This performance audit examined the Big Game Drawing
System. The primary objective of this audit was to determine the
fairness of the big game permit and license drawing process.
Background
Permits and licenses issued through the Big Game Drawing System
must be used in conjunction with a valid resident conservation or
sportsman license, or nonresident conservation or combination
license. To obtain an elk permit through the annual drawing a
resident also needs a valid prerequisite elk license.
Applications Submitted to
FWP
In 1994 over 100,000 people submitted applications for moose,
sheep, goat, deer, elk and antelope licenses and permits.
Approximately 200,000 individual species applications were
submitted for 106,799 licenses or permits.
Applications Processed for
Inclusion in Computer
Database
Computer programs are used to conduct the big game drawings.
The Special Licensing Section, Licensing and Data Processing
Bureau, FWP processes applications for the big game drawings. A
number of manual edits are performed prior to inputting the
information into the computer. Before the database is updated, the
application information is processed through a number of drawing
system edits. If the errors cannot be corrected by section staff the
application information is put in a separate file and the applicant is
refunded a portion of the application fee. Those applications which
are corrected and/or error free are uploaded to the database.
Page S-1
1995 Audit Report Summary
Game Limits Placed on
Certain Applicants
Nonresidents are limited to, but not guaranteed, 10 percent of a
district quota. Up to 15 percent of elk, antelope, deer and deer B
permits in each hunting district are available for residents and
nonresidents claiming landowner preference.
1 2
Online Library → Montana. Legislature. Legislative Audit Division → Big game drawing system, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks : performance audit follow-up (Volume 1998) → online text (page 1 of 2)
Using the text of ebook Big game drawing system, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks : performance audit follow-up (Volume 1998) by Montana. Legislature. Legislative Audit Division active link like:
read the ebook Big game drawing system, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks : performance audit follow-up (Volume 1998)
read the ebook Big game drawing system, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks : performance audit follow-up (Volume 1998)
