|
YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
Report No. 2004-75
September 27, 2004
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State
Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every 4 years in
counties, like Wayne, that do not have a county auditor. In addition to a
financial and compliance audit of various county operating funds, the State
Auditor's statutory audit covers additional areas of county operations, as well
as the elected county officials, as required by Missouri's Constitution.
This audit of Wayne County included additional
areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials. The
following concerns were noted as part of the audit:
-
Payroll expenditures claimed against the Public
Safety Partnership and Community Policing Grants (COPS) � Methamphetamine
Initiative grant were not supported by adequately detailed time sheets. In
addition, the office administrator's salary appears to be an unallowable
cost. As a result, salary and fringe benefit amounts totaling $57,871, appear
questionable and could be disallowed by the granting agency. Also, the
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards prepared by the county was not
complete or accurate.
-
The county's General Revenue Fund financial
condition is declining. The 2004 budget projected a zero cash balance at
December 31, 2004, and the Special Road and Bridge Fund is owed $68,997 due to
the county's property tax reduction related to sales tax. In addition, the
County Commission is considering the construction of a new jail even with its
weak financial condition. It does not appear that the county has sufficient
monies to payback the amounts owed to the Special Road and Bridge Fund,
adequately reduce the property tax levy in the General Revenue Fund in future
years, and to construct a new jail without some increase in revenues or a
reduction in expenditures.
-
Bids were not always solicited or advertised by
the county, nor was bid documentation always retained, adequate supporting
documentation was not always obtained and reviewed or was not in sufficient
detail for some expenditures.
-
The county paid the Western District County
Road Overseer $5,300 on October 7, 2003 for a 1992 truck to be used for road
and bridge purposes. The truck was previously owned by the Western District
Commissioner who sold the truck for $2,500 to the overseer on October 6,
2003. No public notice was given and no bids were requested for the purchase
of the truck. This transaction appears to be a conflict of interest and may
violate state law.
-
Formal budgets were not prepared for various
funds, actual expenditures exceeded the budgeted amount in various funds, and
expenditures of some funds exceeded the original budgets prior to amending the
budgets. In addition, a deficit ending fund balance was budgeted for the
Sheriff's Donations Fund in 2003, the published financial statements did not
include the financial activity of various funds, and some county funds are not
held by the County Treasurer and disbursed through the county's expenditure
system.
-
The county has not taken action on mid-term
salary increases given to associate county commissioners in 1999. 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 they are waiting to see what
other counties in the state do on this issue.
-
Additional salary concerns include actions of
the salary commission in approving a raise for the County Treasurer were not
supported by a written legal opinion, the Public Administrator receiving
annual compensation based on a salary and fees instead of choosing to receive
either a salary or fees, and the Sheriff receiving additional compensation
from overtime and other payments.
-
Several concerns were noted in the Sheriff's
office. Checks and money orders are not always restrictively endorsed
immediately upon receipt, receipts are not posted to the cash control ledger
on a timely basis, receipts are not always deposited intact on a timely basis,
and the composition of receipts is not reconciled to the composition of
deposits. Also, checks have been outstanding for a considerable length of
time and accrued costs are not adequately monitored.
-
Several concerns were noted in the Sheriff's
commissary procedures. Accounting duties are not adequately segregated,
prenumbered receipt slips are not always issued, checks and money orders are
not always endorsed upon receipt, receipts are not always deposited timely,
and checks have been outstanding for a considerable length of time. Also, a
commissary inventory listing is not maintained, profit earned on sales is not
monitored, open items are not reconciled, and inmate balances are not
reviewed. In addition, various invoices could not be located and questionable
purchases were made.
The audit also includes some matters related to
personnel policies and procedures and property records and procedures. The
audit also suggests improvements in controls and procedures of the Prosecuting
Attorney, Health Center, and the Senate Bill 40 Board.
Complete Audit Report
Missouri State Auditor's Office
moaudit@auditor.mo.gov