YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

December 31, 2003

Report No. 2003-121

IMPORTANT:  The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Dunklin, 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 Dunklin 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 to ensure budgets are prepared for all county funds, and as a result, budgets were not prepared for twenty-eight different county funds.  Receipts of funds which were not budgeted totaled $476,573 and $383,574 for 2002 and 2001, respectively.  Disbursements of funds which were not budgeted totaled $583,994 and $394,087 for 2002 and 2001, respectively.
  
   

• The county does not have adequate procedures in place to track federal awards for the preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and has not established cash management procedures to ensure minimal time elapses between its receipt of federal project monies and the distribution of such monies to contractors.
  
   

• The county approved expenditures in excess of available monies, budgeted deficit balances for some funds, did not include some funds in the published financial statements, and did not ensure all townships prepared and published financial statements.
  
   

• Problems were noted regarding 911 Board expenditures including the leasing of a vehicle.  More than $7,000 was paid in both 2002 and 2003 for leasing a vehicle used in mapping activities.  Mileage records available showed the vehicle was driven only 2,389 miles in 2003.
  
   

• Several concerns were noted regarding the county's personnel policies and procedures including timesheets not always indicating actual time worked, the lack of detailed leave records, and errors in the Sheriff's department timesheets.  In addition, the county paid occupational performance awards totaling $19,425 to county employees and two former employees were overpaid upon their termination.
  
   

• Several concerns were noted in the Ex-Officio County Collector's procedures.  Some monies are not deposited intact and checks received for these monies are not restrictively endorsed upon receipt.  In addition, monthly listings of liabilities are not prepared and reconciled to cash balances, partial payments received for tax collections have not been deposited, and interest earned on bank deposits has not been distributed.  Annual settlements have not been filed for several years and some monthly distribution errors have been made.
  
   

• Several concerns were noted in the Sheriff's procedures.  The inventory listing of seized property is not complete or accurate and procedures have not been implemented to periodically review cases and dispose of related seized property items.  The Sheriff and his deputies are apparently receiving duplicate payment of mileage costs when serving civil papers.  Approximately $33,500 for the two years ended December 31, 2002 appears to have been paid from both the Sheriff's fee account and the county General Revenue Fund.  In addition, no procedures are performed to monitor outstanding paper service fees or to follow up on past due paper service fees.
  
   

• Several concerns were noted in the Sheriff's commissary procedures.  A former employee misappropriated $18,854 from the commissary account until detected by the Sheriff.  However, while the Sheriff indicated new controls had been implemented, weaknesses were still noted in the accounting controls.  Concerns included the numerical sequence of receipt slips not being accounted for, monthly listings of open items not reconciled to cash balances, and inmate balances not reviewed to ensure unclaimed monies are resolved in a timely manner.  Also, a $1 booking fee is not consistently charged and profit earned on commissary sales is not adequately monitored.

The audit also includes some matters related to general fixed asset records, computer controls, and boarding of prisoners.  The audit also suggested improvements in controls and procedures of the County Treasurer, Assessor, Associate Circuit Division, Probate Division, Prosecuting Attorney, Public Administrator, Recorder of Deeds, Health Center, and the Senate Bill 40 Board.

Complete Audit Report