YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
Report No. 2004-99
December 30, 2004
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every 4 years in counties, like Bates County, 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 Bates 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 Sheriff’s Department has not segregated accounting duties or provided for independent oversight of accounting functions, does not deposit fee account receipts intact on a timely basis, does not issue receipts slips for all monies received, and the numerical sequence of receipt slips is not reconciled to deposits. Official receipts are sometimes used for purchases, monthly fee reports are not being prepared, and bank reconciliations for the inmate account are not performed and reconciled to an open items listing. In addition, purchases of vehicles were made without bids, a patrol car was sold without advertisement to the Sheriff for $3,100, and vehicle logs are not maintained for Sheriff’s vehicles.
The Prosecuting Attorney continues to collect a $50 deferred prosecution fee on criminal cases which are not prosecuted, although no legal authority to collect this fee was provided. Receipts slips are not always issued for these fees and the monies collected are not deposited to the county treasury, but are used to purchase soda, snacks, and office supplies. The Prosecuting Attorney has custody of the Prosecuting Attorney Bad Check Fund and some expenditures from this fund, such as employee bonuses and employee meals within the city of Butler, appear questionable. Procedures for handling restitution monies were questioned and the Prosecuting Attorney maintains custody of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Federal Forfeiture account, contrary to an Attorney General’s Opinion.
The Walnut Township Collector failed to make property tax distributions totaling over $25,000 during the fiscal year ended February 28, 2003. These distributions were eventually made several months later after county officials were notified. Our audit further identified an additional $2,463 which was not distributed during the fiscal year ended February 29, 2002. These monies were not paid out until April 2004, after we contacted the Walnut Township Collector. Charges of theft have been filed against the Walnut Township Collector by the Prosecuting Attorney.
No evidence of advance planning, including forecasts of projected revenues and expenditures or occupancy rates for the new detention center, were provided for the detention center. The delay in housing federal prisoners has been a factor in the poor financial condition of the Law Enforcement Sales Tax Fund. Revenue and expenditure data provided to the County Commission in June 2004 contained errors and had to be revised in November 2004. Neither version of this financial data was reconciled or compared to the county’s financial records. Communication problems between the County Commission and the jail staff exist as to what expenditures are attributable to the jail versus the other departments funded through the Law Enforcement Sates Tax Fund.
Disbursements were approved in excess of budgeted amounts for various funds and several funds overspent their approved budgets. The General Fund owes $76,000 to the Special Road and Bridge Fund, due to excessive administrative transfers during 2001-2003.
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 Bates County Associate County Commissioners’ salaries were each increased approximately $8,400 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 $16,800 for the two years ended December 31, 2000, should be repaid.
County officials received raises in July 2003, due to a change in assessed valuation of the county. However, Section 50.333.8, RSMo, states elected officials’ salaries shall be adjusted each year based on the official’s year of incumbency. An opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney indicated the raises appeared to be allowable, but did not indicate the effective date. In addition, it appears current year's, rather than the preceding year's assessed valuation, was used when determining the maximum allowable salaries.
The audit also suggested improvements to procedures over capital assets and various expenditures. In addition, the audit included recommendations to the County Clerk, Health Center, Associate Division, Assessor, and Senate Bill 40 Board.