|
YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
Report No. 2005-28
April 2005
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State
Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every 4 years in
counties, like Barton, 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 Barton 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 county does
not have adequate procedures in place to track federal awards for the
preparation of the SEFA. For the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, the
county's SEFA did not include expenditures related to some of its federal
grants (primarily expenditures of the
highway planning and construction
and public assistance grants)
which resulted in total expenditures being understated by approximately
$50,000 and $486,000, respectively.
-
The County
Commission did not monitor prevailing wages paid during the construction of a
county bridge in violation of federal and state laws. In addition, the
County Commission has not properly monitored its subrecipients' expenditures
for federal emergency management assistance (FEMA). As a result, the County
Commission allowed these subrecipients to expend over $457,000 without
reviewing or monitoring expenditures related to the FEMA program.
� The
controls and procedures over county expenditures need improvement.
The county did not
always solicit bids or retain bid documentation for various purchases, prepaid a
vendor $76,741 for materials that were not delivered for several months, and has
not made the required payments to the Missouri Office of Prosecuting Services
(MOPS) since 2002 and owes the MOPS $10,492. The County Commission indicated
they would not make any payments to the MOPS until IV-D incentive monies are
released by the state. In addition, some
expenditures did not appear to be a prudent use of county funds and the county
has not adopted formal policies and procedures for the use of county credit
cards, has not prepared an annual maintenance plan for county bridges, and
has not
established formal follow up procedures for unpaid prisoner board bills.
-
Some officials' salaries for the year ending
December 31, 2004 are not supported by salary commission actions. In
addition, various county employees who handle monies are not bonded.
-
Centralized leave records are not maintained
for all county employees by the County Clerk. As a result, two Sheriff's
office employees were allowed to accumulate annual leave beyond the maximum
allowed by the county's personnel policy and another employee was allowed to
take annual leave beyond his accumulated balance.
-
Problems were noted related to the Circuit
Clerk's accounting controls and procedures. Bank reconciliations are not
prepared for the fee account in a timely manner, the Circuit Clerk relies on
the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) to identify and resolve errors
made in the accounting system, several outstanding checks are over one year
old, and open items (liabilities) are not reconciled to the related cash
balance. In addition, a complete listing of accrued costs owed to the court
is not maintained and monitoring procedures related to accrued costs are not
adequate. The Law Library Fund has accumulated a significant fund balance
without any specific documented plans for its use, and over $20,000 is
maintained in a noninterest-bearing checking account.
-
Controls and procedures need improvement in the
Sheriff's office. Receipts are not always deposited timely, checks and money
orders received are not restrictively endorsed and safeguarded until
deposited, receipt slips are not always properly accounted for, the method of
payment is not always indicated on receipt slips, and original copies of
voided receipt slips are not always maintained. Controls and procedures over
inmate monies regarding the segregation of duties, following up on old
outstanding checks, and preparing listings of open items (liabilities) have
not been established. In addition, seized property items are not always
tagged to identify the property to a specific case, the Sheriff's office does
not calculate the average cost of meals served to prisoners, and vehicle logs
are not maintained for Sheriff's office vehicles.
Also included
in the audit were recommendations related to general fixed assets. The audit
also suggested improvements in the procedures of the Prosecuting Attorney,
Assessor, and Health Center.
Complete Audit Report
Missouri State Auditor's Office
moaudit@auditor.mo.gov