Luallen releases Pike Fiscal Court audit, refers county See the audit report for Full Details |
Crit Luallen |
|
(Frankfort - September 24, 2009)
State Auditor Crit Luallen today released the 2008 Pike County Fiscal Court audit, which refers an issue concerning a county employee to the US Attorney’s Office, Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, Kentucky Retirement Systems and county attorney.
The audit found that the county’s financial statements, in all material respects, fairly present the county’s assets, liabilities, and equity arising from cash transactions and revenues received and expenditures paid in conformity with the modified cash basis of accounting. As part of the audit process, the Auditor must comment on non-compliance with laws, regulations, contracts and grants. The Auditor must also comment on material weaknesses involving the internal control over financial operations and reporting. The audit contains the following comments: Employee timesheets should accurately reflect hours worked. While conducting the audit, auditors found that an administrative employee in Pike County Judge-Executive Wayne T. Rutherford’s office had been off on extended leave. Auditors determined that the employee received donated leave time starting Dec. 16, 2006 through pay period ending April 19, 2008. Fiscal court amended the administrative policy to discontinue donated leave, and the employee reportedly returned to work at that time, according to the audit. Auditors, however, reviewed all subsequent timesheets through pay period ending May 16, 2009 and were told the administrative employee did not actually return to work even though the timesheets reflected time worked. Auditors reviewed 10 timesheets that appeared to have different signatures. A county employee reported to the auditors that she was directed to sign the timesheets on behalf of the administrative employee in his absence, even though the timesheets reported that he worked on the days timesheets were due. Auditors then met with the county judge and Pike County Deputy Judge John Doug Hayes. During that meeting, auditors learned of a meeting with the administrative employee. From that meeting, an arrangement was worked out by which the employee could work at home. When the employee was physically able, he should come to work in the office, according to the audit. Auditors, however, could not substantiate that any work had been done during the period after which donated time was disallowed. Auditors, therefore, question the validity of all of the administrative employee's timesheets turned in after pay period ending April 19, 2008. The audit recommends that the Pike County Attorney determine what work has been performed and seek repayment for any wages the county may have paid for hours not worked. Additionally, the audit will be referred to the US Attorney’s Office, Attorney General and Kentucky Retirement Systems for determination whether further investigation is warranted. In response to the finding, the county judge mentions “relevant parts of the Pike County Fiscal Court Administrative Code.” These administrative codes can be found in the audit. “While an administrative employee is to be on duty seven days a week, the hours to be worked requirement of the code are ‘the hours necessary to perform their job in an efficient manner and provide the county with the service that their job is supposed to provide.’” The auditor’s office replied, “The Pike County Fiscal Court has adopted an administrative code that may allow an employee to be paid for time not worked. The Auditor of Public Accounts strongly recommends that any employee earning full-time salary and benefits who works less than a full workweek be required to use leave time or be placed on leave without pay. No public employee should be paid for time not actually worked unless accumulated leave time is charged.” The audit is recommending that the fiscal court review and revise the current Administrative Code in order for administrative employees to be held accountable for the time actually worked. According to the auditor’s reply, “Properly documented evidence of time worked is important for accountability to the taxpayers, as well as to confirm that employees are eligible for retirement benefits requiring 100 hours to be worked per month in accordance with Kentucky law (KRS 78.510).” In other audit findings: Internal controls over solid waste collections were weak resulting in misappropriation of assets of the county. The county’s internal controls over solid waste collections did not contain sufficient checks and balances. Consequently, the solid waste department found that the amounts paid by six different customers were not actually applied to their account. These six individuals were able to document that they had actually paid the amounts in full. The receipts provided by the individuals showed the amount paid and had the initials of one employee in the department. This employee did not regularly collect payments; she would just fill in for the front desk worker whenever needed. The fiscal court has investigated and provided a list of the six instances and has been able to document $719 that the solid waste employee had misappropriated. The fiscal court has turned this over to law enforcement and is awaiting an outcome. To adequately protect against misappropriation of assets and/or fraudulent financial reporting, the audit recommends the fiscal court develop a system that will document the amount of cash paid on both the solid waste departments receipt and the customers receipt. This should happen instantly to prevent the manipulation of the receipt. Also the audit recommends that a person independent of the collection process review the daily deposit and daily receipts and agree back the daily checkout sheet. If these duties cannot be segregated due to limited staff or limited budget, then strong oversight should be provided to the employee responsible for these duties. This finding is being referred to the Attorney General’s Office. Rutherford, responded, “The employee is no longer employed and will implement a triplicate receipt book system.” |
|
|
|