The Last State Audit Of Giles County Released To The Public
There seems to be some great discomfort over the latest State Audit that was done and released by the state. The last State Audit that was released covers the period of 1 July 2007 - 30 June 2008. The state refers to this as the 2008 Audit and was released and posted on the State Comptroller's Website a few weeks ago. The link to that audit is http://www.comptroller1.state.tn.us/RA_CA/CountyAudits.asp?C=028.
Recently, after I posted the findings of this audit, much denial has been expressed by some that this is not the latest audit. It is the latest audit released by the state for public exposure. A letter was sent to Commissioners, by the County Executive, denying this was the latest audit and instead of explaining or discussing the deficiencies simply dismissed them. The questions raised by this audit still remain unanswered.
1) Page 56 item D - Contingent Liabilities: The county is involved in several pending lawsuits. The County attorney has not responded to our requests to provide estimates of the potential claims not covered by insurance.
2) Page 172 Finding 08.01 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL DIRECTOR Expenditures exceeded appropriations approved by the County Commission in the following funds' major appropriations categories: County Buildings 55,761.00; County Coroner/Medical Examiner $6,044.00; Waste Pick-up $6,862.00.
3) Page 173 Finding 08.02 Competitive bids were not solicited for the purchase of occupational injury insurance for the offices of County Executive and Highway Commissioner. The County Financial Management System of 1981 requires purchases exceeding $10,000.00 to be competitively bid.
4) Page 173 Finding 08.03 OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF SCHOOLS Expenditures exceeded appropriations approved by the County Commission in the following funds' major appropriation categories (the legal level of control): General Purpose School, Attendance- $778.00; Health Services $4,022.00; Other Student Support $381.00; Vocational Education Program- $3,543.00; Office of the Principal- $2,896.00; Federal Projects Instruction Vocational Education Program- $1,435.00; Support Services Vocational Education Program- $1,367.00; Central Cafeteria Food Service- $46,007.00.
5) Page 174 Finding 08.04 item A - 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. Using bid specifications that apply only to local vendors violates the intent of Section 49-2-203 Tennessee Code Annotated.
6) Page 174 Finding 08.04 item B - Competitive Bids were solicited through public advertisement for playground equipment. However, the bid specifications were acquired from a manufacturer of playground equipment. The Board of Education received and accepted one bid totaling $49,877.00 from a subsidiary of the manufacturer. Using bid specifications that apply only to a particular brand or item of equipment violates the intent of Section 49-2-203 TCA.
7) Page 174 Finding 08.05 General ledger payroll liability accounts were not reconciled with payroll reports and payments. Sound business practices dictate that payroll liability accounts be reconciled with payroll reports and payments monthly.
The question now is not whether this is the latest released audit but why these deficiencies have not been addressed in any public meeting or with the commissioners individually. To date no commissioner has acknowledged having any discussion in any committee meeting of this audit or its findings. Allen Barrett
Recently, after I posted the findings of this audit, much denial has been expressed by some that this is not the latest audit. It is the latest audit released by the state for public exposure. A letter was sent to Commissioners, by the County Executive, denying this was the latest audit and instead of explaining or discussing the deficiencies simply dismissed them. The questions raised by this audit still remain unanswered.
1) Page 56 item D - Contingent Liabilities: The county is involved in several pending lawsuits. The County attorney has not responded to our requests to provide estimates of the potential claims not covered by insurance.
2) Page 172 Finding 08.01 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL DIRECTOR Expenditures exceeded appropriations approved by the County Commission in the following funds' major appropriations categories: County Buildings 55,761.00; County Coroner/Medical Examiner $6,044.00; Waste Pick-up $6,862.00.
3) Page 173 Finding 08.02 Competitive bids were not solicited for the purchase of occupational injury insurance for the offices of County Executive and Highway Commissioner. The County Financial Management System of 1981 requires purchases exceeding $10,000.00 to be competitively bid.
4) Page 173 Finding 08.03 OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF SCHOOLS Expenditures exceeded appropriations approved by the County Commission in the following funds' major appropriation categories (the legal level of control): General Purpose School, Attendance- $778.00; Health Services $4,022.00; Other Student Support $381.00; Vocational Education Program- $3,543.00; Office of the Principal- $2,896.00; Federal Projects Instruction Vocational Education Program- $1,435.00; Support Services Vocational Education Program- $1,367.00; Central Cafeteria Food Service- $46,007.00.
5) Page 174 Finding 08.04 item A - 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. Using bid specifications that apply only to local vendors violates the intent of Section 49-2-203 Tennessee Code Annotated.
6) Page 174 Finding 08.04 item B - Competitive Bids were solicited through public advertisement for playground equipment. However, the bid specifications were acquired from a manufacturer of playground equipment. The Board of Education received and accepted one bid totaling $49,877.00 from a subsidiary of the manufacturer. Using bid specifications that apply only to a particular brand or item of equipment violates the intent of Section 49-2-203 TCA.
7) Page 174 Finding 08.05 General ledger payroll liability accounts were not reconciled with payroll reports and payments. Sound business practices dictate that payroll liability accounts be reconciled with payroll reports and payments monthly.
The question now is not whether this is the latest released audit but why these deficiencies have not been addressed in any public meeting or with the commissioners individually. To date no commissioner has acknowledged having any discussion in any committee meeting of this audit or its findings. Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 10:11 AM
|
164 comments
