dekalb county p-card audit: commissioner kathie gannon

8/10/2019 DeKalb County P-Card Audit: Commissioner Kathie Gannon

1/18


2/18

I

I

I .

I

I

DEKALB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COMMISSIONER DISTRICT NO. 6

REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

I

FOR THE PERlODS APRIL 2004 TO APRIL 2014


3/18

DeKalb County Board of Co mm is s io ner s Pu r ch as e rd Review District 6

O .Ha

~LUNKETT

CO.

P.c.

+ = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ACCOUNTANT

&

CONSULTANTS' 1800 PEACHTREE RD. NW SUITE 333 ATLANTA GEORGIA 30309' VOICE (404) 351-6770' FAX (404) 351-6845

1050 17TH ST., NW' SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20036' VOICE (202) 496-5307' FAX (202) 466-2400

EMAIL. [email protected] WEB' WWW.OHPCPA.COM

DeKal~ County Georgia Board of Commissioners

Commissioner District No. 6

DeKalt County, Georgia

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

We have performed the procedures engagement as listed in the Table of Contents, which were

agreed to by the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners ( the BOC), solely to assist with

monitoring proper application of certain policies and procedures relating to analyzing the

expenditures of each member of the BOC and their staff for the years commencing April 2004

throug& April 2014.

These Lrvices are delivered by applying a set of agreed-upon queries to records contained in

your system database via computer-assisted data-mining technologies. The objective of these

procedures was to identify within the database any anomalies or other matters that would require

further investigation. Such anomalies could be an indication of an error, either intentional or

unintentional, a need to refine your internal control framework or a need to improve operational

ffi

.

I .

e iciencies.

The County's management is responsible for the contents of the database and all related

accounting records. This procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation

standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency

of these procedures is solely the responsibility of the specified party to this report. Consequently,

we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures as listed in the Table of

Contents either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.

We were not engaged to, and did not conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the

expression of an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have

come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the BOC and its management and

should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.

Atlanta, Georgia

October 3,2014

21Page


4/18

DeKalb lountv Board'of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

I

31Page

Distri t 6

REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 6

DEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2004 to APRIL 2014

Table of Contents

PAGE NO.

A.

I

, .

f

D.

Executive Summary : 4-

Agreed-Upon Procedures Defined .

General Information .

DeKalb County Policies 6-

e

Purchase Card Policy

4' 1 Travel Policy

Mobile Policy

Retention Policy

E. Summary of Procedures Performed 7-8

., Purchase Card Expense Review

Non Purchase Card Expense Review

F. Summary of Findings Purchase Card Transactions 9-111

61

General

Specific

G. Purchase Card Review - Individuals 12-14

H. Summary of Key Transactions Exceptions

15

..

1. Non Purchase Card Transactions 16-17

General


5/18

I

DeKalb GountyBoard of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

I

Distric 6

Executive Summary - District 6

I

We per~ormed those procedures stipulated in the DeKalb County's Georgia Professional Service

Invitation to Bid, (ITB No. 14-100413) as mandated by the Board of Commissioners' resolution da d

April 22,12014. The objective ofthese procedures were to review DeKalb's County Procurement Card P-

Card) e~penditures to consider (a) whether purchases were for appropriate material goods used b ~ a

Commdioner in the normal functioning of a Commission office; (b) whether there is evidence of a va id

work prdduct when a service is purchased; and (c) what evidence exists that meals and travel expen es

were fori County business. The scope of this review was to cover the periods commencing April 2 o b 4

through April 2014. The sufficiency of the procedures performed is solely the responsibility of thdse

parties specified in this report, . . . I

P-Cards offer a quick and efficient means of making business purchases. According to a National

Association of Purchasing Card Professionals (NAPCP) evaluation, typical savings resulting from P-C rd

usage are $63 per transaction.' Efficiencies include the cost of vendor maintenance, purchase ord s,

wages olf employees that process payments, and resources for check disbursements. Inconsist nt

compliance with P-Card policies provides a less than desirable internal control environment and redu es

level oftl-ansparency for County resources utilization.

During our engagement, we reviewed internal audit reports issued by the Internal Audit

&

Licensi g

Division on all of the District and Central offices covering transactions from 2009 to 2011. . Deficienc es

cited in these reports included: (a) improper or nonexistent transaction logs; (b) charges unsupported y

receipts or other documentation; (c) lack of approval at the appropriate levels by authorized personnel as

identified in the Policies and Procedures Manual; and (d) incorrect coding of transactions by budget Ine

categories. Our procedural review revealed deficiencies concurrent with those previously found by he

Internal Audit reports. A substantial portion of the supporting documents including the P-C; rd

accounting logs were never prepared or submitted in accordance with the Policies and Procedures adopted

by the County.

This procedural review took into consideration the County's five (5) year mandatory record retention

policy inclusive of the limited availability of any records prior to 2009. Additional efforts were therefore

made to secure any documentation still in possession by former employees. Letters were sent to addresses

on file with DeKalb County Human Resources requesting assistance in providing supporting

documentation.

I

Specifically, our review of District 6 covered the period for which Commissioner Gannon has held since

its ince~tion. In total, there were five (5) people within the district who were granted purchasing cards

during the scope period. We received supporting documentation for all 5 individuals within District 6,

whose related transactions totaled $26,327 since P-Card purchases commenced in 2006.

Individual card expenditures ranged from $686 for R. Morgan to $9,078 for Commissioner Gannon. The

concentration of purchase card incurred expenses was applicable to county business related travel,

operating supplies and Other Miscellaneous Charges. Other Miscellaneous Charges was observed to

include but was not limited to the following: office supplies, food for meetings, seasonal contributions to

constituent groups, and website hosting. District 6 total P-Card usage remained steady between $1,500

and $3,000 through 2011 prior to increasing to $5,000 in 2012 and surpassing $6,000 for the first time in

2013.

I I

1www.napcp .or g

41Page


6/18

1

DeKal b clunt v Boar d of Commis si oners Purc has e Car d Review

Distric 6

1 _ 1

Our re~iFw of District 6 P~Card expe~ditures showed f~w. deficiencies. We did note that montl Iy

transaction logs were not signed consistently by authoritative personnel; however, 99% of rela d

transaction logs and accompanying receipts were available for review. As a whole, the District folIo d

establish Id policies and procedures for P-Card purchases. Where documentation support was missing, e

observed that the transactions appeared to be County business related.

As a whole, we note District 6's overall compliance with established County policies and procedures.

Policies land procedures provide a valuable management control on P-Card operations. Mandat ry

procedures help provide an essential framework for integrating financial and operational best practices.

Compliance by all levels of County staff, including the Commissioners is recommended to ensure

financial transparency and objective stewardship of County resources.

To mitigate non-compliance and exposure to fraud, waste and abuse, mandatory training on P-Card

Policies and Procedures should be implemented for all authorized users. A periodic reassessment of these

policies and procedures should be viewed as a means by which internal controls are enhanced on the use,

authorization, and documentation and approval process. Further, there should be a review of the P-CJrd

system ihtegration with the County's organizational structure. The current policy is vague on wh Ich

management position is accountable and appropriate to review and approve Commissioner Ie el

transactions.

51Page


7/18

Dekalb Tunty Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

greed Upon Procedures Defined

An agreed-upon procedures engagement differs from a financial statement audit. A financial statem nt

audit is alsnapshot of the financial picture of an organization at a point in time. In an audit, the aUd~'or

obtains reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, exami es

eVidencelsupporting the financial statements, and assesses both accounting principles used and over II

financial statement presentation. The auditor then renders an opinion on whether the financial stateme~ts

are prese ted fairly in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. .

This enJgement, an agreed-upon procedures engagement, is defined as one in which we perform speci IC

procedures and report findings. We did not perform an audit or provide an opinion relating to the subject

matter or assertion about the subject matter. Rather, we performed only those procedures that have been

agreed upon with management and report findings. These procedures often are at a more detailed level

than is customary in a financial statement audit.

General Information

On April 22, 2014, the BOC passed a resolution by the governing authority of DeKalb County, Gear Iia

directingl the Executive Assistant to obtain the services of a Certified Internal Auditor or a Certified

Government Audit professional to:

I

1. Review the expenditures for the past ten years (2004 through 2014) by each member of the Bo rd

of Commissioners, his/her respective staff and office, and the central office of the Board of

Commissioners.

,

2. The a.uditor shall review ex~e~diture.s to consider (a) w~et~er purchases w~re. for appropri te

matenal goods by a Commissioner 111 the normal functioning of a Commissioner office; b)

whether there is evidence of a valid work product when a service is purchased; and (c) w at

evidence exists th1atmeals and travel expenses were for County business.

The review was conducted in accordance with the following DeKalb County policies in effect during ,he

procedural scope period, 2004 to 2014: Purchasing Card Policy, March 2004; Mobile Policy; Travel

Policy; and the Retentioi Policy as required by the Georgia Records Act (O.C,G,A 50-18-90 et seq.),

whose revised schedules were filed with the Division of Archives and History, Office of Secretary of

State as of July 30, 2010.

Purchase Card Policy

The 2004 Purchase Card Policy states that DeKalb County has established a Purchasing Card (P-Card)

program that allows designated employees the ability to purchase selected, business-related goods and

services whose value is jess than $1,000. This program is intended to be an alternative method for the

purchase of small dollar, miscellaneous expense materials and services. These policies and procedures

apply to the use of the Bdnk of America Visa Purchasing CardlP-Card.

DeKalb County is exemJt from paying State of Georgia sales tax. This infers that DeKalb County staff

may need to provide written documentation to vendors and service providers for recognition of the

exempt status on procured services and purchases.

61Page


8/18

DeKalb [ounty Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

The 200~ Purchasing Card policy has been updated and was replaced in April 2014. For the purposes of

our review, we followed the guidelines of the March 2004 policy which was in effect for the entire sc pe

period.

I

Trave110 iCY

The DeKalb County Travel Policy, revised April 2006, sets out the guidelines for approval for travel nd

training rxpenses incurred while conducting authorized County business.

Mobile folicy

The DeKalb County Wireless Policy, March 2009, sets out the guidelines for employees who require a

wireless device for performing essential job functions. Employees may be issued a Blackberry, PDAlor

wireless Icardwith monthly service paid by the department. Wireless devices and plans are to be used ror

official ounty business only.

Records Retention Policy

The DeKalb County Records Retention Policy is filed with the Division of Archives and History, Of ce

of Secre~ary of State as of July 30, 2010. The policy and subsequent revised schedules stipulate he

mandatory minimum retention period for accounting records including: Accounts Payable Files; Invoi es;

Journal Entries; Journals and Registers; Travel - Registration Fee Payments; and Travel Authorizat on

and Reil~bursement Records. All stated documents have a retention classification of Temporary - Sl' ort

Term . The stated accounting records have a 5-year minimum retention stipulation; the travel rei, ed

documentation has al4-

Y

larminimum retention stipulation. . 1

This procedural review actored the County's 5-year minimum record retention policy inclusive of Ithe

limited availability of aniYrecords prior to 2009. As a result, the transaction logs and receipts prio to

2009 were limited during our review.

Procedures

P-Card Expense Review

I

The P-Card review consif.'ed of Board of Commissioners for Districts 1 through 7 (past and current), tf eir

staff, and the Board of C, mmissioner's Central Office personnel who maintained a P-Card for any period

between April 2004 and April 2014. For each individual identified, a history of all P-Card transactions

was obtained and reviewed against established policies and procedures. We reviewed cardholder

transactions, cardholder statements, invoices, receipts and transaction logs to determine the following:

1) The P-Card AdlJinistrator maintained the transaction log on a monthly basis.

2) The cardholder ahached applicable receipts to the monthly transaction log.

3) Transactions were for County business related goods and services and/or appropriate for

department spend.

4) Indiv idual t~an s~c tio n s a nd mon th ly to ta l tra ns ac tio n s d id no t e xcee d gu id elin es e sta blish ed by P -

Card policy.

I

5) Transactions were approved in accordance with established policy.

71Page


9/18

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

Non P-Card Expense Review

We reviewed both vendor payment activity for accounts where the percentage of P-Card expenditur s in

relati09 to the accounts payable transactions was relatively small as shown in

Fig.

2, P

ard

Expencfitures as Percentage of Annual Account Total. This review was targeted on the follo ing

accounts:

II

Other Professional Services

II Other Miscellaneous Charges

e Travel-Airfare

Travel-Accommodations/Hotel and, Training and Conference Fees

We identified select vendors with high payment activity and reviewed supporting documentation to as ess

if expenditures were for County business and to the extent possible, actual service or product was

receive

l

by the County.

81 Pag e


10/18

De.c... County Board of Commissioners

Purchase , .d Review

Review Results for District 6

Distr ic t 6

2004-2014

2004 2005

2006 2007

2008 2009 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

p-Cerd

.~'-C';d

P-Card

.P:Card

c : ; ; : : : :

p:-caro-

.

'P-Card'

pocard

P'-C.rd

..

P-e.rd-

-;,-P-earct--'c-

I--p-eard

$ $ $

78.40

.

- $

89.00

s .

-.'

$

201.11

.$

,

-

s

28.30

$

$

$

s

..

$ $

'-,

$ $

,

;

~

$

102.00

$

'. 150.00

$

. s

'487.15

S

-

109.56

$

':,

..

.

S

s

-

S

' r

.::..

:

$

$' -

279.60

- $

.

$

S. . .

..

s

s ..

S S

:

S S

145.06

s

(561.18)

S

: .198.00

S

.

',:

S

S

$

s

-

..

S

25.00

S

. . . . . -: : :

$

1,006.99

$

'. '715.00

$

1,540.00

$'

1,440.06

s

490.00

s---

S

..

S

1,534.44

$

2,503.18 $ 466.03 $

..

425.84

S

777.22 $ 724.19

S

2,862.61

$. 3,103.09

$

199.65

$

-

$ ... o

S

-

.

.. '834.63.

S

1,973.12

$. 807.49'

$

177.08

.$

498.73

$

748.50 $.

467.50

$

118.01

e

3

.. ;.-:

S

s-

.,'

.,

S

'$

.,~ ,

S S

S

.

$

-

7.75

$

.$

.~, :

..

$

: $.. .

:.:'39:00

$

140.00

S

.J

$

145.42

s

'135.00.

S

$ 368.62 $

35.00

50.00

$

$

,

$

1,612.84

$.

.. 3,376:81

$

2,693.15

$

i,23:i.33

2,409.82

$

2,367.92

$

5,142.39

$

6,064.36

$

865.41

Expense Ac~ount.

Postage

$ 396:81

PrintingServlces $ 848.71

Travel - Airfare $ ..279.60

Travel- Accomodations / Hotel S '343.60

Tratni ngand Conference Fee - Extern

$

5,216.99

Other Miscellaneous Charges s 12,596.-2..5

Operating Supplies

$.

,,5,625.06

.F.~odand Groceries S 7.75

Books-a-nd Subscriptions s 1,013:64

P-Card Total

Grand Totel , - , $ : : . . . ' - - - - = 2 : ;; . : 6 ; . : : . ; 3 i : ; . . 7

' : ; : e 2 l , , . . .

Fig.

1 -

Total Pi Card Spend for District

6

(April 2004 - April 2014)

Key Observations

As shown in Figure 1 above, P-Card usage did not begin within District 6 until 2006. The concentration of P-Card expenditure occurs

within three categories including Operating Supplies, Other Miscellaneous Charges and Training and Conference Fees - External. Other

Miscellaneous Charges was observed to include but was not limited to the following: office supplies, food for meetings, seasonal

contributions to constituent groups, and website hosting,

During our review, we noted 243 transactions totaling approximately $26,327 during the May 2004 through May 2014 scope period.

Based on the documentation provided, 97% of transactions were supported by receipts, The 4 transactions, for which no receipt was

observed, totaled $250 and were each identified as having a business purpose.

e

Per P-Card policy, transaction logs are to be submitted monthly, include a listing of all transactions and, be signed as evidence of its

review and approval. 95% of transactions were included on the transaction logs as directed by P-Card policy. The 12 transactions which

were not included totaled $1,232 and were identified as having a business purpose.

We noted that 99% of the transaction logs provided for review lacked an approval signature as directed by the P-Card policy. This lack of

signed approval on the transaction logs were observed as commonplace and occurring frequently within most Districts, A global

recommendation for this evidentiary measure to be re-emphasized and clarified regarding who is required to do so. The P-card policy

states the cardholder's Department Director is to sign the transaction log. Clarification will be provided within the Districts that

Commissioners are to sign the logs in the stead of a Department Director.

91 Pag e


11/18

Dei _ o Co un ty B oar d o f Co mm is si on er s

Pu rc has e -. d Rev iew

Disi, ..t 6

We observed 24 transactions totaling $2,094 which were not properly exempted from taxes per the P-Card Policy.

iOl P

age


12/18

DL

:.b County Board of Commissioners

District 6

20042014

Expense Account

Postage

P~nti.,:,~Seryices

Travel> f'irfare

Travel . Accomoda i,ons I Hotel

Trainingand Conference ~ee E ~rn

Other Miscella.neous C~arges

Operating Supplies

Food and Groceries

._ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ S u b . . c . : ~ e . i . 9 _ ': ~ _ ._. _ _ . . ...

GrandTotal

P-Card Total

$ 396,81

$ B48,71

$

i79 60

s

343.00

s

5,216,99

s 12,596.25

$ 5,625,06

7,75

$ 1,01:J,04

$ 26,327:21

District 6

20042014

~.lIp~'.'~eA~c~~nt P-Card Total

Post~~:..

$ .

3 9 6 : 0 1

Prin ti ng ?e.rvi~es $' 8 4 s : 7 f

Travel -.Airf~~.~ $ Z~9,60

~a~el -Ac~omod~ti0.n~

Hate I

s 343.00

ra.injn~~ ..n.~.~~ nfe r.e '7e ~ee - E~~ern

$

5,2iG.:G G

Other ~i.sc.e:II.a 1.e~l:ls'0%:' ,.

s s

169,40

0

. 761,80

' . i,463,46 0 : ...

'145,00 . s

s s

1,484,41

0%

3,232,93

4%

715,00. $

1,006.99 s 1,370,99

73% 1,880,00

38%

' . 425:l4 $14,698:52'''3%'

s 777.22 s

.724,19 s

,440.48

23%

4,939,46

15%

$

177.08

$

'

498,73

s

,120,86

B% 1;449.91

34%

s -... .: :~/a:

,::

s s

$

s .la

nla

s:

. : ,- (] . . I . :: . : . : $

145.42 $

$

7.95 164,95

88% 367,32 37%'

.6% $ 2,4QS.82 s

$'. 2,367,92

,233.33 21,5ZS:U. 9,056.81

27% 12,781.42

19%

2012 2014

013

246,00

P-C3rd%of :: ~ : .< ; : ; : . :. , : . . : . . . . , . , : : - . : , . .: P-.Car~?'Of

Total

P - C ar d S~e nd Accouhd::~~I'.~.':


13/18

DeKalb (County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

Distrk

t

District~etri and Brjkdown ofP-Card Spend for 2004 through 2014 - By Individual

District

f

. l

To t al P -Ca rd

% o l

I .

To ta l P -Card

Io/~ o f:

% 1

Transactions

District

,Spe nd 20 0 4 t hr u

District

Transactions

Breakd0r by Dist ri ct Pe rsonne l. -,

..

...: 2014

wI ReceiPtJ,

I

2 0 04 t hru 2 0 14

, . .

K.

G an nqn - Commiss ioner

I

40 16%

s

, 9 ,077 ;,7 4

34%

...93% ;

I

B.Arr in gto n

I

71

29%

$.

7 , 765 :2 4

29%

100% .

R Morgan

1

8 3%

$ 6 86 :40 3%

38% .

C.Wagnpn

I

.

7 3.

.

.

30 %

;' .

.3 ,7 82 :04

14 %

99%

I

M, Wal ldo r ff

5 1

2 2%

'

5 ,015 ;7 9 20%

100%

Totals

: .

.2 43

.

s

2 6 ;32 7 .2 1

'.

97%

:-

,KG a n n o n

..

': 'Totar

:

10M

.z :

,...

. Spend

Trav el- , ,\irfare

I

$

2 79.6 0

3%

Training~d ConferenceFee -External

$

4 ,792.00

5 3%

OtherM iscellan eousCharges 1

$

3 ,5 19 .4 5

39%

Op eratin &Supp lies

I

$

478,94

5%

F o od a n d 1 0 roeerie s

$

7 . 75

0%

Total: '..

y

.........

.$':': 9 '07 7 7 4

'.- ....

-

GenerJ Observations

Com m ission er G annon 's P -Card activ ity represen ted 34% of th e overall D istrict expend itu res w

iil

accou ntin g fo r 16 % of the tran sactio ns, The concen tratio n o f h er spend was in Train ing and Con ferer

ce

and Other M iscellaneou s Charges. No ting th e lack of expenses attribu tab le to Trav el-A irfare and Tra Irel -

A ccom m od atio ns in ligh t o f the sign ifican t co nferen ce fees, w e re vie wed a sam ple o f non P-Card in iti te

ex pen ses fo r th e D istrict's trav el accoun ts. Indo ing so , w e id en tified a substan tial po rtion o fthe D istri d s

tr av el c os ts.

I

Extended Review Details

6

e

s

d

During th e scope penod of Apn l2 004 th rough Apn12 014 , approx im ately $ 43,000 in to tal was posted to

th e categ ories o f T rav el-A irfare, T rav el-A cco m m od atio ns/Hotel and Train ing and Con ference F~ es -

E xte rn al. P er Fig. I, appro xim ately $ 5,800 of th is to tal was charged to th e D istrict's P -Card s during th is

period. G reater than 95% of th e $ 43,000 to tal was attrib utab le to C om m issio ner G a nn on .

W e rev iewed a sam ple of th ese expend itu res to no te docum en tatio n suppo rt and proof o f Coun ty busin ess

related pu rpose. W e no te th at all add itio nal expend itu res rev iewed were id en tified as Coun ty bu sin ess

related an d ad equ ately su ppo rted w ith d ocu m en tatio n,

12

I

P

ag e

, I


14/18

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I ,

DeKalb Gounty Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

I I

B. Arring~On

I

Total

%of

Spend

Postage

I

I

$

167.40 2%

Training apd Conference Fee -~xternal

$

25.00. 0%

Other M i~cellaneous Charges

s

4,586.09 60%

I .

Operatin~ Supp lies

I

$ 2,807.75

36%

Books an~ Subscriptions

I

$

179.00 2%

I

Total

$

7 , 765 .24

General Observations

I

,

D

.

. 1

rstrtct 6

Former Fmployee B. Arpngton s P-Card activity represented 29% of the overall District expenditures

while alfo accountin~ fOf 29% ~f the transactions. The concen~'ation of ~er P-Card expenditures waJ

in

support of the office 1 1 1

i

herMiscellaneous Charges and Operatmg Supplies. J

EXlendid ReviewDelair

A card older from 200~ through 2008, we noted a total of 17 Office Supplies transactions which lere

classifie~ as Other Miscellaneous Charges. All transactions were found to be business related nd

properl1 supported with jeeeiPts

a.Morgan

Total

%of;

Spend:

OtherMiscellaneous Charges $

686.40

100%

Total

: .6 86 040


Former employee R. Morgan's P-Card activity represented 3% of the overall District expenditures ile

also accounting for 3% of the transactions.


A card holder from 2008 through 2009, we noted 5 of 8 total transactions totaling $325.86 were not

included on a transaction log; 3 were without accompanying receipts and improperly categorized. All

transactions were observed to be business related.

C. Wagnon

. Total

%of.

;

Spend

Postage

$ 209.51

6%

Printing Services $ 361.56 10%

Training and Conference Fee -External

s

241.99 6%

Other Miscellaneous Charges

$

1,384.65

37%

Operating Supplies

s

1,168.91

31%

Books and Subscriptions

$

415.42 11%

,

Total

$ 3 ,7 82.04

13IPage


15/18

I I

DeKalb aountv Board of I ommissioners Purchase Card Review Distric 6


Former Jmployee

c.

Wagnon's P-Card activity represented 15% of the overall District expenditures while

also accJunting for 30% of the transactions, The concentration of her P-Card expenditures was in supp10rt

of the office in Other Misrellaneous Charges and Operating Supplies.

Extende1d Review Details

A card hi Ider from 2009 hrough 2012, we noted 2 of her 78 transactions lacked accompanying receipt.

All transactions were observed to be County business related.

I

M.Wa II d10fff

I :

. ,Total

,%of

. S p e ~ d

Postage

I

I

$

19.90

0%

Printing S~rvices

$

487.15

10%

Training and Conference Fee -External

$

158.00

3%

Other Miscellaneous Charges

$

2,762.66

55%

Operatin& Supplies

$

1,169,46 23%

Books an? Subscriptions

$ 418.62

9%

1 . -

Total

. . . . . . > . : ; : , ' :

J;;::

,5;'015;79'

. . . . .

_ ...


M. Walldorff's P-Card activity represented 20% of the overall District expenditures and composed 2 %

of the transactions. The concentration of her P-Card expenditures was in support of the office in

0

her

Miscellaneous Charges and Operating Supplies.


We noted 15 transactions totaling $2,019 for purchases of money orders used to make seasonal

contributions to constituent groups. Four (4) of these purchases were initially deemed to req ire

additional supporting documentation which was provided during our review. The remaining 47

transactions were deemed to be properly supported with receipts and identified as for County business.

14 I P age


16/18

DeKalb 10untY Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

Districtl6 Summary of Key Transaction Exceptions

District

6

Datel

Vendor .

Amount

Comments . , , ..

1.

4-2312009

Cateriffic

$185.00

Charged to R. Morgan's card. This expense

was for catering services provided. The item

was not included on a transaction log and no

receipt was observed.

2. 12-72012 CVS Pharmacy

$1,019.80

Charged to M. Walldorf's card. These

expenditures are for 4 money orders purchased

for $254.95 each. These money orders were

said to be for gifts to DeKalb County Senior

Centers. The lack of supporting documentation

was previously noted by the Internal Audit

group. Supporting documentation was provided

during our review.

e

South

DeKalb Senior Center

-

$250

towards a microwave.

.-

DeKalbl Atlanta Senior Center

-

$250

towards a microwave.

0

North DeKalb Senior

Center

-

$250

towards a stereo system.

s

Scottsdale Senior Center - $250 toward

a

printer.

15

I

P

age


17/18

I

DeKalb

r u n t y

Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

Non P-Card Expe nse Review

During l l e sco pe period of

2004 - 2014,

we reviewed invoice s from larger volum e District

6

vendor

activity to ascert ain the nature of expenses or services prov ided. All paid vendor invo ices reviewed were

identifie r with County business related expenses or services. The vendors provided a variety of services

including the follow ing; graphic design, pu blic rela tio ns consulting,' travel service s for County staff,

other cOlsulting services, printing, catering for governm ent m eetings, technology equipment suppliers,

office snpplies, an d other services. No unusual activity was noted for the vendor invoice activity

. I

reviewed.

I

For the purpose of this report, a ven dor is clas sified as a person or bu siness receiving payment from

DeKalb County through the Accounts Payable process. Employ ees (i.e Commissioner Kathy Gannon)

sub mitting reim bursement requests th rough the Coun ty's Oracle IExpense Sys tem for expenses incurred

wh ile conducting County business are shown as vendors.

Di st ri ct 6

Dist~Ct.6f~ToPVend~rs

b Y D o n a ~ ; ( i p r i l : Z O O 4 L A p r ; I ; ~ i 4 ; , .

~ C r i ~ ~ ; s -

. :$:Total'.:~

: : . /< ; ; i . .

'._

..

,

.,'-

.,

'\..;.

. .. ; .;

; ; : : l n f o i ~ . e : : : . : l

;;:;:;.~::> ,;,j 'fu~j~~ -.P~t~Ranlic

;': . .: :

KATHRY NMG ANNON

250

$

41 ,911.60

February20 05thru April201 4

HFATHERFL U RY '

87

$

30,760.00

Feb rua ry20 05thruApril2014

BANKOF4MERICANA 251

$

26 ,155.87Februa ry2005thru Ma y 2014

NETPROG~SION INC

6

$

17 ,01 0.00

February2005thru February2008

THECOLL~BORAIV EFff i.MLLC

J

$

10 ,0 00.00

November 008

WILLIAM~AV IATIONCONSU LT ANTSNC

1

s

9,766 .1 Augu st200 4

SCOTTBEt)lNETT

2

$

9,332 .21

July2013hru August20 13

KIMBERL ~LWHlT E*

22

$

8,637.00

Jan uary20J3thruNov ember2013

DA TAPRqDU CTIONS

I

s

7,144 .47

Decembe r00 4

AUSONE1HERIDGE

7

$

7, 080.00

Au gus l2009thru June 2010

BL EAKL YDVJSORY GROU P

2 $

6 ,720.00

No vembe r20 07

thru

November200 8

BONDU RAN TMIXSON& ELMOREL LP

3

$

6 ,504 .85

February2007th ruFebruary2008

DELLMAR KETINGP

5

$

6 ,389.08

December 00 5thruJune 200 8

Total

638

s

187,411.19

*Note:

We identified person s who worked for the Districts on a temporary or consistent basis without

the

classification of full time DeKalb County employee . Th ese in div id uals were identified as having a

1099

fil ing

with DeKalb

County

and are

considered professional service

providers. Where available,

we

reviewed a sample of their

invoices

and noted the description of professional

services

to

include:

IT

services , professiona l writing and

public relation s

consulting, website

design and

maintenance,

an d

com munity organization and strategy,

**Note:

We identified full time employee s who Incurred County bu smess related expenses

which

Jere

subm itted through the County's Oracle IExpense System for reimbursement. District personnel can

subm it items for re im b ursement directly for approval through the Accounts Payable system .

T

ese

expenses are not Purchase Card initiated transactions, but instead out of pocket expenses which are

subm itted with supportin g d ocu mentatio n, and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Department u ing

sim ilar stringent guide lines to ensure they are valid prior to approval and reim bursem ent.

Comments for Each Vendor

nk of America NA

Am oun t is for to tal paym ents to Bank of America for Purchase Card expenditures during the

sco pe perio d.

P

age


18/18

I

DeKalb(CountyBoard of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 6

Net prJression Inc.

I

II frofessional services were provided by Net Progression, Inc. dba f2 Technology from February

r0 0 5 - May 2009. We reviewed invoices thatdescribed the service provided as: Delega te

yervice License; Access to Delegate software for email and website management. The vendor

rVOice activity reflected a range from $1,334 - $4,000 for the 4-year period.

The Collaborative Firm

I

e

peKalb County Planning Services were provided by The Collaborative Firm in November 2008.

Fe reviewed the invoice that described the service provided as: Services provided by the firm

from December 2008 through February 2009 for Phase I of IV of DeKalb County Planning

Services for Bouldercrest Road/Cedar Grove.

Willia1 Aviation Consultants Inc.

f) fhe invoice for this expense item was subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removed

from records; no invoice was available for review.

I

Scott Brnett

o Legal services were provided to the Commissioners' Office by Scott Bennett, Attorney at Law

from June 2013 - July 2013. We reviewed two invoices for $6,535 and $2,797. Each invoice was

for Commissioner Gannon's share of services jointly provided to Gannon and District 2

Commissioner Rader. The observed invoice description was for

Legal research and preparation

of motion to dismiss, finalize post hearing brief preparation of application to appeal, finalize

motion to di1miss, etc. I

~~~m . I

o The invoice for this expense item was subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removed

from recordf; no invoice was available for review. I

Allison Etheridge

Bleakly Advisory Group

II

Professional services were provided by Allison Etheridge. Reviewed June 2010 invoice for

$1,440 for hours related to

the Green Commission - Energy Efficiency Workshop.

o

The invoice for this expense item was subject to the 5-year retention policy and was rem Ived

from records; no invoice was available for review. The company is known to provide consult tion

services for economic studies and developing financing plans for proposed developments.

Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP

e

The invoice for this expense item was subject to the 5-year retention policy and was rem ved

from records; no invoice was available for review.

Dell Marketing LP

Computer equipment was procured from Dell Marketing from December 2005 - June 2008. otal

vendor invoice payment activity was $6,389. The vendor invoice activity ranged from $269 -

$4,988.

17IPage

dekalb county p-card audit: commissioner kathie gannon

Documents