YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

December 23, 2003

Report No. 2003-119

IMPORTANT:  The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Clark, 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 Clark County included additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials.  The following concerns were noted as part of the audit: 

• The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards prepared by the county was not complete or accurate.  In addition, the county did not establish cash management procedures to ensure the minimum time elapsed between receipt of federal grant monies for a bridge project and the distribution of such monies to the contractors, as required by the grant program.  Three of eight reimbursements reviewed, totaling $75,096, $5,770, and $12,731, were received and held 6, 23, and 48 days, respectively, before the related payment was made to the contractor.

• The General Revenue Fund and � Cent Sales Tax � Jail Operating Fund, which fund the county's main general operations, are in poor financial condition.  Cash balances of the two funds have declined and totaled only $390 at December 31, 2002.  The 2003 budgets projected an ending cash balance at December 31, 2003 of only $154.  Various factors such as elected official's raises, courthouse improvements, grant matching requirements, and increasing Sheriff's office and jail operating costs have contributed to the declining cash balances and/or will have continuing impacts for several years to come.

• In 2002 the county made a questionable administrative transfer of approximately $67,500 from the Special Road and Bridge Fund to the General Revenue Fund.  The transfer related to activity for prior years, including 1999, 2000, and 2001 even though the county voluntarily did not take the full transfer when allowed in those prior years.  In addition, the county's budgets and published financial statements did not properly reflect all financial activity of the � Cent Sales Tax � Jail Building Fund.  Principal totaling $150,000 invested in certificates of deposit was excluded from the reported cash balances each year.  Other concerns relating to the reporting of interest earnings and the proceeds of a temporary bank loan were also noted.

• For some traffic tickets, the Prosecuting Attorney reduces charges if defendants make a "donation" to the Clark County Youth Fund.  The Prosecuting Attorney does not make the Associate Circuit Judge aware of the donation when presenting the reduced charges/plea bargain to the court.  It appears that requiring such donations may not be allowable and the Prosecuting Attorney and Associate Circuit Judge should reevaluate whether the program is acceptable.  In addition, county officials have not retained appropriate oversight of the Clark County Youth Fund, have developed no written guidelines defining allowable uses of the funds, and have not received or retained appropriate documentation to support the expenditures of some monies, other than the initial funding request applications.  

• Records and procedures in the Sheriff's Department were inadequate to ensure grants were properly managed.  Grant records and files were disorganized and incomplete and there was little or no monitoring or oversight to ensure claims and reports were submitted timely and payments were received.  Reimbursement on three requests totaling $28,761 was not received for two to seven months after the claims were filed, some claims were not filed quarterly as the grants allowed and/or were filed several months after the end of the quarter, the appropriate amounts were not always claimed, and financial status reports were not filed timely on one grant, resulting in a subsequent grant application on the program being denied. In addition, payroll expenditures claimed against one grant were not always supported by timesheets and the county did not appear to have a clear understanding of its ongoing obligation on each grant.  
  
• Time sheets and leave records are not always prepared by Sheriff deputies or reviewed and approved by supervisors, and these records are not forwarded to the County Clerk.  In addition, accounting duties in the Sheriff's Department are not adequately segregated, receipts are not deposited in a timely manner, and there are no procedures to ensure all costs for boarding prisoners of other counties are billed and received.

The audit suggested improvements to bidding and procurement procedures, personnel procedures and records, the handling of Road and Bridge Department rock invoices, and fixed assets and fuel inventory records and procedures.  The audit also recommends improvements in the records and procedures of the offices of the Prosecuting Attorney, the Circuit Clerk, and the Associate Circuit Court.

Complete Audit Report