A CONSULTANT OR A WASTE OF MONEY???

At the Financial Management Committee Meeting held on 5 November 2008 two significant things took place. First Commissioner Campbell was elected as chairman. What's significant about that is Commissioner Campbell was one of the people who most strongly opposed adoption of the Financial Management Act. The Committee now is made up of mostly people who opposed it's adoption. By law the County Executive, Highway Supervisor and Schools Director are members. Provisions are made for four additional appointees none are required to be county commissioners. The appointments include Commissioner Wilburn as chairman of the Budget Committee, Commissioners Reedy, Campbell and Brown. To say the cards are stacked against any serious oversight is a huge understatement.

The second thing that happened in the meeting was that after having been presented with a full explanation of the actual cost of insurance for the county and the desire to explore bidding out the insurance Mrs Vanzant stated that CTAS had recommended a consultant be hired to look at the insurance situation. After some discussion where several commissioners present stated there was no need for a high priced consultant to do what had already been done and that this was only an exploratory action to see how much money could be saved. A very quick vote was taken with Commissioners Brown, and Reedy along with members Jackson, Vanzant and Hyatt voting to hire a consultant. Commissioner Campbell passed as the last vote cast. Commissioner Wilburn voted no to hiring a consultant.
After this vote the meeting was very quickly adjourned and members walked out as the audience was trying to ask questions about the cost of a consultant and the delaying actions that had been taken by the committee. Allen Barrett

Now Many Lawsuits Are There Against The County???

On page 56 of the Giles County Audit For 2008 this paragraph is listed.
"D. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES: The county is involved in several pending lawsuits. The county attorney has not responded to our request to provide estimates of the potential claims not covered by insurance. However, management believes that any claims resulting from such ligation would not materially affect the county's financial statement."

Several questions come to mind as a result of this statement by the state auditor;
1) How many lawsuits presently are there against the county?
2) Why hasn't the county attorney responded to the request made by the auditors?
3) Who specifically in county management has determined that unsettled lawsuits not covered by insurance will not materially affect county finances?
4) Why haven't the County Commissioners been made aware of this situation?
Allen Barrett

2008 County Audit Finally In ??????

A few weeks ago it was announced by the County Executive and the Financial Management Director that the 2008 State Audit for the County had been release and that Giles County only had two small deficiencies that dealt with the Ambulance Service. Commissioners were told that copies of the Audit would be mailed to them shortly. As of this morning no County Commissioner had received a copy of the audit or any information about deficiencies.
The truth of the matter is that there are a number of deficiencies revealed in the Audit some very significant and none involving the Ambulance Department.
These are the deficiencies listed in the Audit.
1) OFFICE OF FINANCE DIRECTOR:
A) Expenditures Exceeded Appropriations. Amount overspent $68,667.00.
B) Competitive Bids Were Not Solicited For The Purchase Of Occupational Injury Insurance. Competitive bids were not solicited for the purchase of occupational injury insurance for the Offices of County Executive and Highway Commissioner.

2) OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF SCHOOLS:
A) Expenditures Exceeded Appropriations. Amount Overspent $60,429.00.
B) Office Had Purchasing Deficiencies. Competitive bids were solicited through public advertisement for property and casualty insurance. However, the bid specifications required the bidder to be a Giles County Insurance Agency.
C) Competitive bids were solicited through public advertisement for playground equipment. However the bid specifications were acquired from a manufacturer of playground equipment then the Board of Education received and accepted one bid totaling $49,877 from a subsidiary of the manufacturer.

3) General Ledger Payroll Liability Accounts Were Not Reconciled With Payroll Reports And Payments

4) OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK:
A) Office Had Deficiencies In Computer System Backup Procedures

5) OTHER FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION:
A) Duties Were Not Segregated Adequately In The Offices Of Trustee, Clerk And Master, And Register.
Allen Barrett