YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

September 30, 2003

Report No. 2003-105

IMPORTANT:  The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Henry, which do not have a county auditor.  However, to assist such counties in meeting federal audit requirements, the State Auditor will also provide a financial and compliance audit of various county operating funds every two years.  This voluntary service to Missouri counties can only be provided when state auditing resources are available and it does not interfere with the State Auditor's constitutional responsibility of auditing state government. 

Once every four years, the State Auditor's statutory audit will cover additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials, as required by Missouri's Constitution.

This audit of  Henry County included additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials.  The following concerns were noted as part of the audit: 

• Numerous personal phone calls were made utilizing the Tri-County Child Support office phone line and calling card.  We identified personal calls totaling 6,171 minutes with related charges of approximately $4,600.  These calls were made by the Tri-County assistant prosecuting attorney and a friend of his daughter.  This number of minutes and amounts do not represent all personal calls.  Additional follow up with the Tri-County assistant prosecuting attorney confirmed there were other personal calls made.  Of the $4,600, $3,300 was paid by the county.  The county Prosecuting Attorney has obtained repayments from individuals totaling approximately $894, and is planning additional review work related to personal phone calls.  Because most of the personal phone call costs were reimbursed to the county by the state through the federal child support enforcement program, most amounts recouped by the county for inappropriate calls are due to the state. 
   
• The county has not taken action on mid-term salary increases given to associate county commissioners elected in 1997.  On May 15, 2001 the Missouri Supreme Court handed down an opinion that challenged the validity of Section 50.333.13, RSMo, which allowed county salary commissions in 1997 to provide mid-term salary increases for associate county commissioners.  The Supreme Court held this section of law violated Article VII, Section 13 of the Missouri Constitution, which specifically prohibits an increase in compensation for state, county and municipal officers during the term of office.  The County Commission responded that they were complying with the law when accepting these raises. 
   

• The newly elected Prosecuting Attorney's salary was set at $43,350 or approximately $5,915 less than was paid to the former Prosecuting Attorney during 2002.  This salary decrease was not supported by county salary commission action or a legal opinion. 
   
• Problems were noted with Prosecuting Attorney Bad Check Fund expenditures.  Meal costs in excess of the county�s policy were paid to the former Prosecuting Attorney and his employees for an August 2002 training meeting.  The former Prosecuting Attorney and the former assistant prosecuting attorney were reimbursed for equipment purchases without proper documentation. 
   
• Sheriff�s department bond receipts totaling at least $2,513 were received and not deposited during September and October 2002.  Through timely reconciliation procedures and follow up on concerns the Sheriff identified the problem and obtained repayment of the undeposited monies.  The Prosecuting Attorney has filed charges in this matter.
   
• The schedule of expenditures of federal awards did not accurately report expenditures of numerous federal programs.
   
• There was no documentation that the County Commission considered other engineering firms when procuring engineering services for a federal bridge project, as required by state law.
   
• As noted in past audit reports, the county has been significantly overestimating expenditure amounts budgeted for the Special Road and Bridge Fund.  As a result, administrative service fee transfers from the Special Road and Bridge Fund to the General Revenue Fund have often exceeded three percent of actual disbursements.  As of December 31, 2002, $140,000 is due back to the Special Road and Bridge Fund for these excess transfers. 

Also included in the audit are recommendations related to county budgetary, bidding, and expenditure procedures.  The audit also suggested improvements in accounting controls and procedures of the Sheriff, Prosecuting Attorney, County Treasurer, and Health Center Board.

Complete Audit Report