Stone County Receives “Fair” Audit Rating
July 8, 2020
Isaac Estes-Jones
The Missouri State Auditor’s office released an updated audit of Stone County earlier this month, rating the performance of the county at “Fair.” In 2016, the county received a “Poor” rating.
The audit report, dated July 2020, found several issues in five county offices. The 2016 audit reported extensive issues in 10 offices.
The 2020 “Fair” rating, according to the Auditor’s office means, “The audit results indicate this entity needs to improve operations in several areas. The report contains several findings, or one or more findings that require management’s immediate attention, and/or the entity has indicated several recommendations will not be implemented. In addition, if applicable, several prior recommendations have not been implemented.”
At this time, the Auditor found issues in the Public Administrator, Sheriff, County Collector and Prosecuting Attorney’s offices and also identified an issue in payroll controls and procedures.
On the payroll side of things, the Auditor reports that timesheets are not prepared for several employees on salary. Additionally, paid time off earned and taken by these individuals is not tracked. Because salaried employees are paid in advance of time worked, this leads to the potential for errors and the employees being over or under paid.
The county indicates they do not have any salaried employees that receive less than the standard Fair Labor Standards Act exemption, meaning those employees are not able to accrue overtime. With regard to paying ahead of time worked for salaried employees, “The County Commission needs to be conscious of the financial obligations of salaried... employees. Because [they] have adjusted their expenses to the county’s pay schedule, the County Commission believes that changing... pay dates will cause financial hardship.” The Auditor states that additional procedures to compare actual time worked to time reported “would be an adequate alternative to discontinuing compensating salaried employees in advance.”
The auditor found issues in depositing procedures in the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, specifically that, for the year ended December 31, 2019, there were times where deposits of cash were not made until upwards of one week after the money was received.
According to the response from the office included in the audit report, the Prosecuting Attorney’s office instituted a policy in February 2020 that no cash over $100 be kept in the office overnight and indicates no violations of this policy have been noted.
The audit indicates the County Collector needs to monitor the amount of tax collections for the Assessment Fund, better monitor partial payments and keep a numerical sequence of receipts. In response, the Collector states the issue related to the Assessment Fund was “due to an interpretation of the law by both the County Collector and the previous County Assessor in the calculation of additional assessment deductions.” Partial payments are reportedly checked each month and, as a result of this audit, only one receipt book will be shared among staff at a time.
Audit findings for the Sheriff’s office included not depositing receipts in a timely manner, does not adequately ensure unpaid boarding costs are identified, has not established procedures to follow up on outstanding checks in the inmate bank account and does not charge adequate mileage for serving civil papers.
In response, the Sheriff’s office stated that, “Per the December 2016 audit, the Sheriff’s office was told a weekly receipt deposit was considered timely. Effective immediately the Sheriff’s office will deposit receipts timely.” The auditor responded that the definition of timely is dependent on the actual amount of money received and based on the receipts for calendar year 2019, once a week is not enough because going that long can, “increase the risk that loss, theft, or misuse of monies will occur and go undetected.”
With regard to the jail board tracking, the sheriff’s office said the previous Jail Administrator has been replaced and the new administrator and another full time employee regularly go over this procedure. Inmate checks are reportedly transferred to another facility and the office is looking for ways to satisfy the audit requirements. Finally, the fees for civil services are increased to $30 plus actual mileage.
The Auditor found three problems in the Public Administrator’s office regarding filing annual settlements, assessing fees and one specific case of gift cards purchased for a ward without complete backing of receipts showing the funds were spent correctly.
The Public Administrator’s response indicates a major portion of these issues are on track to be resolved now that the office has a part-time staff person to work in addition to the public administrator herself, especially in regard to timely filings of status reports and annual settlements. The Administrator is also hopeful that a new computer program will make these filings and collections easier.
The Missouri State Auditor’s office released an updated audit of Stone County earlier this month, rating the performance of the county at “Fair.” In 2016, the county received a “Poor” rating.
The audit report, dated July 2020, found several issues in five county offices. The 2016 audit reported extensive issues in 10 offices.
The 2020 “Fair” rating, according to the Auditor’s office means, “The audit results indicate this entity needs to improve operations in several areas. The report contains several findings, or one or more findings that require management’s immediate attention, and/or the entity has indicated several recommendations will not be implemented. In addition, if applicable, several prior recommendations have not been implemented.”
At this time, the Auditor found issues in the Public Administrator, Sheriff, County Collector and Prosecuting Attorney’s offices and also identified an issue in payroll controls and procedures.
On the payroll side of things, the Auditor reports that timesheets are not prepared for several employees on salary. Additionally, paid time off earned and taken by these individuals is not tracked. Because salaried employees are paid in advance of time worked, this leads to the potential for errors and the employees being over or under paid.
The county indicates they do not have any salaried employees that receive less than the standard Fair Labor Standards Act exemption, meaning those employees are not able to accrue overtime. With regard to paying ahead of time worked for salaried employees, “The County Commission needs to be conscious of the financial obligations of salaried... employees. Because [they] have adjusted their expenses to the county’s pay schedule, the County Commission believes that changing... pay dates will cause financial hardship.” The Auditor states that additional procedures to compare actual time worked to time reported “would be an adequate alternative to discontinuing compensating salaried employees in advance.”
The auditor found issues in depositing procedures in the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, specifically that, for the year ended December 31, 2019, there were times where deposits of cash were not made until upwards of one week after the money was received.
According to the response from the office included in the audit report, the Prosecuting Attorney’s office instituted a policy in February 2020 that no cash over $100 be kept in the office overnight and indicates no violations of this policy have been noted.
The audit indicates the County Collector needs to monitor the amount of tax collections for the Assessment Fund, better monitor partial payments and keep a numerical sequence of receipts. In response, the Collector states the issue related to the Assessment Fund was “due to an interpretation of the law by both the County Collector and the previous County Assessor in the calculation of additional assessment deductions.” Partial payments are reportedly checked each month and, as a result of this audit, only one receipt book will be shared among staff at a time.
Audit findings for the Sheriff’s office included not depositing receipts in a timely manner, does not adequately ensure unpaid boarding costs are identified, has not established procedures to follow up on outstanding checks in the inmate bank account and does not charge adequate mileage for serving civil papers.
In response, the Sheriff’s office stated that, “Per the December 2016 audit, the Sheriff’s office was told a weekly receipt deposit was considered timely. Effective immediately the Sheriff’s office will deposit receipts timely.” The auditor responded that the definition of timely is dependent on the actual amount of money received and based on the receipts for calendar year 2019, once a week is not enough because going that long can, “increase the risk that loss, theft, or misuse of monies will occur and go undetected.”
With regard to the jail board tracking, the sheriff’s office said the previous Jail Administrator has been replaced and the new administrator and another full time employee regularly go over this procedure. Inmate checks are reportedly transferred to another facility and the office is looking for ways to satisfy the audit requirements. Finally, the fees for civil services are increased to $30 plus actual mileage.
The Auditor found three problems in the Public Administrator’s office regarding filing annual settlements, assessing fees and one specific case of gift cards purchased for a ward without complete backing of receipts showing the funds were spent correctly.
The Public Administrator’s response indicates a major portion of these issues are on track to be resolved now that the office has a part-time staff person to work in addition to the public administrator herself, especially in regard to timely filings of status reports and annual settlements. The Administrator is also hopeful that a new computer program will make these filings and collections easier.