YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
Report No. 2004-101
December 30, 2004
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every 4 years in counties, like Gentry, 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 Gentry 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 adequately track or report federal financial assistance on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). The county’s SEFA contained several errors and omissions.
Section 50.333.13, RSMo, enacted in 1997, allowed salary commissions meeting in 1997 to provide a mid-term salary increase for associate county commissioners elected in 1996, due to the fact that their terms were increased from two years to four. Based on this law, in 1999 Gentry County Associate County Commissioners’ salaries were each increased approximately $3,250 yearly, according to information from the County Clerk.
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. Based on the Supreme Court decision, the raises given to each of the Associate County Commissioners, totaling approximately $6,500 for the two years ended December 31, 2000, should be repaid.
Officials’ salaries were not always handled consistent with the salary commission decisions. There was some question as to whether the associate county commissioners’ salaries, established at the 1999 salary commission meeting, were set at a level below the statutory amount. A 2002 Prosecuting Attorney opinion, which indicated a previous opinion addressing various salary issues was in error, made no mention of corrections to the associate county commissioners' salaries although an adjustment was made to the County Clerk's salary in 2002 for underpayments in previous years.
Duties in the Sheriff’s office are not adequately segregated and there is no independent oversight. Numerous weaknesses related to receipt procedures were noted, including receipt slips not being issued for some monies received, the numerical sequence of receipt slips not being accounted for, receipts not being deposited intact, monthly bank reconciliations not always being performed, and open items listings not being prepared. In addition, adequate control over seized property has not been established.
County Aid Road Trust (CART) monies were distributed to townships during the two years ended December 31, 2003 without written contracts. The County Clerk does not ensure the township boards’ financial statements are prepared and published and some township collectors bonds were insufficient.
The County Commission does not maintain minutes of their closed sessions and minutes of applicable open meetings did not always indicate the decisions made and votes taken in closed session.
The audit also suggested improvements to procedures over capital assets and fuel and vehicle records. In addition, the audit included recommendations to the Emergency Dispatch Board and Tri-County Health Center Board.