YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

January 22, 2004

Report No. 2004-06

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

 

• Amounts charged by the former Recorder of Deeds for microfilm sales were not always consistent and accurate.� Receipts slips were not issued for microfilm purchases and bids were not solicited and written contracts were not obtained for microfilming services.� The sale of microfilm to one title company, in late 2002, was not handled consistent with sales to other title companies.� Typically the county charged title companies for the purchase of microfilm, however in one instance, the microfilm company and not the county billed for the sale.� Had this transaction been handled similar to other sales of film, the county would have received about $40,000.
  
   
• The county does not adequately track or report the federal assistance on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA).
  
   
• The actual receipt and disbursement amounts shown in county budgets contained incorrect amounts and numerous misclassifications.� In addition, budget preparation procedures need improvement and expenditures were in excess of budgeted amounts for various funds.
  
   

• A state law, Section 50.333.13, RSMo, enacted in 1997, allowed salary commissions meeting in 1997 to provide mid-term salary increases for associate County commissioners elected in 1996.

On May 15, 2001, the Missouri Supreme Court handed down an opinion that holds that all raises given pursuant to this statute section are unconstitutional.� As noted in our prior report, the 1997 salary commission voted to give elected officials a salary increase mid-term.� The County Commission indicated they would ask the county�s legal counsel to review this matter and discuss it at the 2001 salary commission meeting.� However, a salary commission meeting was not held in 2001 and while the County Commission has adopted a resolution not requiring repayment of these raises, this action was not supported by a written legal opinion.

• The County Treasurer�s salary was increased $10,710 annually, starting in 2003, but this action was not approved by the salary commission.

House Bill 2137, effective August 28, 2002, provided for an increase in the compensation paid to the county treasurer.� It established an alternative, higher salary schedule and stated the salary commission may authorize the use of the alternative salary schedule.� As a result, without a documented legal opinion, it is unclear whether the salary increase provided to the County Treasurer is in accordance with state law.

• Child Support Enforcement reimbursements claimed by the former Prosecuting Attorney during 2002 and 2001 were inaccurate.� Total hours worked by the former Prosecuting Attorney and various employees were understated on the reimbursement requests compared to the total hours worked according to the timesheets submitted to the County, thus causing reimbursements of salaries and operating expenses to be higher than allowed.� Total questioned costs identified were $3,756.
  
   
• Bids were not always solicited for all purchases made by the county and sole source procurement was not adequately documented.� Some emergency planning monies received by the county were not adequately monitored by the County Commission and payments of County Aid Road Trust (CART) revenues and road and bridge sales tax revenues to special road districts were made without proper written contracts.

The audit also suggested improvements to procedures for county vehicles, property tax controls, and Planning and Zoning.� In addition, the audit included recommendations to the County Treasurer, Senate Bill 40 Board, County Clerk, Circuit Clerk, Sheriff, Assessor, and Juvenile Office.

Complete Audit Report