YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
December 1, 1999
Report No. 99-114
The following problems were discovered during an audit of the Missouri Department of Transportation for the year ended June 30, 1998. This audit includes findings for fiscal year 1999.
Future reports will focus on maintenance per mile comparisons, use of highway funds for purposes other than construction, and the current 5-Year Plan being used by the department.
During fiscal year 1998 and 1999, the Missouri Department of Transportation reduced the allocation of federal bridge monies to the various counties within the state and city of St. Louis by more than $1.1 million, the amount of funding appropriated to the State Auditor's office from the State Highway Department Fund during those years. This was done to offset audits by our office of County Aid Road Trust Fund monies in third class counties, audits which are required by the federal government and are a condition for maintaining federal funding of road projects.
The department reimburses various moving expenses related to the recruitment of top management employees as well as the transfer of existing employees to other locations within the state. At our request, the department prepared a report of employee moving expenses paid during fiscal year 1998. According to this report, such costs totaled almost $600,000. As similarly noted in our prior report, it appears some of these expenses may be unreasonable. Although the department's moving expenses decreased by more than 30 percent in fiscal year 1998 compared to the previous year, this was not due to the department changing its reimbursement policy. In addition, it appears the department is currently reviewing its reimbursement policy and discussing its provisions with the Office of Administration; however, no changes had been made to the policy as of April 1999.
The department classified 350 flights taken in department planes from March 1998 through March 1999 into twelve categories, such as travel by a Commissioner(s) for a purpose other than a commission meeting; travel by a Commissioner(s) for a commission meeting; travel by administration office personnel involving one or two passengers; travel by administration office personnel involving more than two passengers; \etc. Approximately 29 percent and 51 percent of these flights related to travel by Commissioners and department personnel, respectively. The other 20 percent of the flights were for miscellaneous reason, including aerial photography.
The following problems were discovered during an audit of the Missouri Department of Transportation for the year ended June 30, 1998. This audit includes findings for fiscal year 1999.
Future reports will focus on maintenance per mile comparisons, use of highway funds for purposes other than construction, and the current 5-Year Plan being used by the department.
During fiscal year 1998 and 1999, the Missouri Department of Transportation reduced the allocation of federal bridge monies to the various counties within the state and city of St. Louis by more than $1.1 million, the amount of funding appropriated to the State Auditor's office from the State Highway Department Fund during those years. This was done to offset audits by our office of County Aid Road Trust Fund monies in third class counties, audits which are required by the federal government and are a condition for maintaining federal funding of road projects.
The department reimburses various moving expenses related to the recruitment of top management employees as well as the transfer of existing employees to other locations within the state. At our request, the department prepared a report of employee moving expenses paid during fiscal year 1998. According to this report, such costs totaled almost $600,000. As similarly noted in our prior report, it appears some of these expenses may be unreasonable. Although the department's moving expenses decreased by more than 30 percent in fiscal year 1998 compared to the previous year, this was not due to the department changing its reimbursement policy. In addition, it appears the department is currently reviewing its reimbursement policy and discussing its provisions with the Office of Administration; however, no changes had been made to the policy as of April 1999.
The department classified 350 flights taken in department planes from March 1998 through March 1999 into twelve categories, such as travel by a Commissioner(s) for a purpose other than a commission meeting; travel by a Commissioner(s) for a commission meeting; travel by administration office personnel involving one or two passengers; travel by administration office personnel involving more than two passengers; \etc. Approximately 29 percent and 51 percent of these flights related to travel by Commissioners and department personnel, respectively. The other 20 percent of the flights were for miscellaneous reason, including aerial photography.
Our review of flight logs and related documentation disclosed the following concerns:
The specific purpose of many flights was not adequately documented. In many instances, the flight logs included only a very general description of the purpose of the flight, such as "meetings". In addition, we noted all information presented on the logs was not complete. There were several instances where departure and arrival points and/or the departure and arrival times were not recorded. In addition, the flight logs did not always list the names of all passengers. Sometimes, if there was more than one passenger, a notation of one passenger's name was included on the log, but the additional passengers were noted as +1,+2, etc.
To ensure the planes are used only for official state business, the specific purpose of the flight, all passengers, and other pertinent information should be fully documented. In addition, documentation authorizing out-of-state flights and a comparison of the cost of a commercial flight to the cost of using a department (or charter) plane is not documented and kept.
The procurement of consulting services, involving expenditures of approximately $336,000 related to the reorganization of the Information Systems Division, did not appear to be handled properly and in accordance with department policy. There was no written contract/agreement between Missouri Department of Transportation and the consultant identifying the scope of services to be provided and the compensation to be paid.
The procurement of certain aggregate materials and gasoline and diesel purchases at various maintenance sheds in District 9 were not made in accordance with the department requirements.
Access to the department's computer system is not updated on a timely basis when an employee moves to a new position or terminates employment.
The Local Public Agency Manual, which is provided to subreceipient entities and identifies federal compliance requirements, does not address the cash management requirement. The department does not ensure that subrecipients submit the required statement of procedures or ensure sub recipients evaluate at least three firms as required, when the sub recipient obtains engineering services. The department does not have adequate procedures to ensure findings reported in subreceipient audit reports are properly addressed.