~-- -~

DeKalb County Board of
Commissioners Purchase CardAudit
Commissioner District 1:
Un -payer &-V-Oter.com
DEKALB COUNTY BOARDOF COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT NO. 1
REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES
FOR THE PERIODS APRIL 2004TO APRIL 2014
DeKalb Co~j,i:Y·Board of Com-missioners Purchase CardReview District 1
O.H. PLUNKETT & CO., P.Ce I
11/ 1 1111 11111111 1111 1111 IIII II11 .
ACCQUNTANTS & CONSULTANTS· 1800 PEACHTREE RD. NW' SUI TE 333' ATLANTA GEORGI A 30309' VOICE (404) 351-6770' FAX (404) 351-6845
1050 1rTHST, NW· SUI TE 600· WASHI NGTON, DC • 20036' VOI CE (202) 496-5307' FAX (202) 466-2400 I
EMAI L. plunkett@ohpcpa.com WEB· WWW.OHPCPA.COM
DeKalb County Georgia Board of Commissioners
.Commissioner District No.1
DeKalb 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 DeKa1b 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
through April 2014.
These services 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 wasto 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, aneed to refine your internal control framework or aneed to improve operational
efficiencies.
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 Arrierican 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 thisreport 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
comero our attention that would have beenreported toyou.
This ~eport is intended solely for the information and use of the BOC and its management and
ShOUl n:~ anyone other t~ thosespecified parties.
~~~~"Ld\~
Atlanta, Georgia
October 3, 2014
21Page
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review
31Page
District 1
REPORT ON AGREED-UPON. PROCEDURES
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1
DEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2004 to APRIL 2014
Table of Contents
PAGE NO.
A.
Executive Summary 4-5
B. Agreed-Upon Procedures Defined 6
c.
General Information 6
D. DeKalb County Policies , 6-7 ..
eI Purchase Card Policy
8' Travel Policy
iii Mobile Policy
• Retention Policy
E. Summary of Procedures Performed : 7-8
• Purchase Card Expense Review
~ Non Purchase CardExpense Review
I

r
G.
Summary of Findings Purchase Card Transactions 9-11
e General
e Specific
Purchase Card Review - Individuals 12-14
Summary of Key Transactions Exceptions 15-16
Non Purchase Card Transactions 17-18
& General
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
Executive Summary - District 1
We performed 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 dated
April 22, 2014. The objective ofthese procedures were to review DeKalb's County Procurement Card (P-
Card) expenditures to consider (a) whether purchases were for appropriate material goods used by a
Commissioner in the normal functioning of a Commission office; (b) whether there is evidence of a valid
work product when a service is purchased; and (c) what evidence exists that meals and travel expenses
were for County business. The scope of this review was to cover the periods commencing April 2004
through April 2014. Tbe sufficiency of the procedures performed is solely the responsibility of those
parties specified inthis report.
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-Card
usage J e $63 per transaction.
1
Efficiencies include the cost of vendor maintenance, purchase orders,
wages b f employees that process payments, and resources for check disbursements. Inconsistent
comPli11ce with P-Card policies provides a less than desirable internal control environment and reduces
level of ransparency for County resources utilization. .
During our engagement, we reviewed internal audit reports issued by the Internal Audit &Licensing
Division on all of the District and Central offices covering transactions from 2009 to 2011. Deficiencies
cited in these reports included: (a) improper or nonexistent transaction logs; (b) charges unsupported by
receipts or other documentation; (c) lack of approval at the appropriate levels by authorized personnel as
identifid in the Policies and Procedures Manual; and (d) incorrect coding of transactions by budget line
categories. Our procedural review revealed deficiencies concurrent with those previously found by the
Internal Audit reports. A substantial portion of the supporting documents including the P-Card
account~ng logs were never prepared or submitted in accordancewith the Policies and Procedures adopted
by the d:ounty.
This pr~cedural review took into consideration the County's five (5) year mandatory record retention
policy ihclusive of the limited availability of any records prior to 2009. Additional efforts were therefore
made tal' 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
documentati on.
Specifically, our review of District 1 covered a period for which former Commissioner Boyer held her
position during the entire in-scope period. In total, there were three (3) persons within the district who
were g~anted purchasing cards. Of the 3cardholders observed, we received no supporting documentation
for 1former employee whose transactions totaled $18,846. The district's P-Card purchases commenced in
2006 and totaled $103,665.
Individual card expenditures ranged from $18,846 for N. McBride to $56,321 for former Commissioner
Boyer. The concentration of purchase card expenses were applicable to county business, related travel to
seminars, operating supplies, and Other Miscellaneous Charges. Other Miscellaneous Charges was the
designated classification for a total of $73,269, or 71% of the total district charges. Other Miscellaneous
Charges was observed to include but was not limited to the following: office supplies, food for meetings,
professional consulting services, public relations, minor technology purchases, website service support
and expenses for community outreach communications.
1www.napcp.org
41Page
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
Purchase card usage within District 1steadily increased every year from2006through the most recent full
year total of $30,832 in2013.
Our review of District 1 P-Card expenditures showed specific deficiencies in a lack of available
transactional support for both employees and the former Commissioner. We observed transactions that
although they were not inviolation of the existing P-Card policy at thetime of purchase, were not clearly
in linewith the intention of the stated policy. Specifically, wereferenced transactions for excessive meals.
Contrary to policy, we observed several purchases which havebeen deemedpersonal in nature, and thus
required reimbursement to the County. Reimbursable expenses were identified to include airfare, rental
cars, and meals. Due to the unavailability of transaction logs and receipts, other transactions remain
questionable regarding their business purpose, and have beennoted as such.
In addition to the review of the P-Card transactions, we performed a review of the non P-Card
expenditures incurred by District 1. In our review oftop vendors, we noted the identification of vendor M.
Rooks Boynton and the $83,250 he received for "professional consulting services, research, legislative
analysis and lobbying" from September 2009 through November 2011. At the time of release of this
report, we acknowledge former Commissioner Boyer's public admission that these expenditures were
made for non-existent services. Preventive measures, which should be adopted, include insuring that all
contractors submit a Statement of Work with a signed Professional Services Agreement. Additionally,
progress invoicing of ongoing work production should detail thelevel of completion, thus providing some
objective measure to beconsidered prior to subsequent vendor payment.
A~a best practice, and in light of the Boyer/ Boynton admitted activities to defraud the County, it is
advisable that policies and procedures beboth bolstered andlor newly implemented for controls related to
vendor acceptance and reviewed prior to submission of payment for services rendered. Preventive
measures which should be adopted include insuring that all contractors submit aStatement of Work with
a Signe~Professional Services Agreement that remains on file. Additionally, progress invoicing and the
mandatory provision of an example of ongoing work product with details regarding the level of
completion for all agreed upon services should beconsidered asastandard prior to vendor payment.
Policies I and proced~res provide. a valuable mana~ement .control o~ P-Card op~rations. Mand~tory
procedures help provide an essential framework for mtegratmg financial and operational best practices.
compli1nce by all levels of County staff, including the Commissioners is recommended to ensure
finanCial transparency and objective stewardship of County resources.
To miti ate 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 ameans by which internal controls are enhanced onthe use,
authori ation, and documentation and approval process. Further, there should be areview of theP-Card
system integration with the County's organizational structure. The current policy is vague on which
managefent position is accountable and appropriate to review and approve Commissioner level
transact, OilS.
SIPage
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
Agreed-Upon Procedures Defined
An agreed-upon procedures engagement differs from afinancial statement audit. A financial statement
audit is a"snapshot" of the financial picture of an organization at apoint intime. In anaudit, the auditor
obtains reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, examines
evidence supporting the financial statements, and assesses both accounting principles used and overall
financial statement presentation. The auditor then renders an opinion onwhether the financial statements
arepresented fairly inconformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
This engagement, anagreed-upon procedures engagement, isdefined as one inwhich weperform specific
procedures and report findings. We did not perform anaudit 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 afinancial statement audit.
General Information
On April 22,2014, the BOC passed aresolution by the governing authority of DeKalb County, Georgia
directing the Executive Assistant to obtain the services of a Certified Internal Auditor or a Certified
Government Audit professional to:
1. Review theexpenditures for the past ten years (2004through 2014) by each member of the Board
of Commissioners, his/ her respective staff and office, and the central office of the Board of
Commissioners.
2. The auditor shall review expenditures to consider (a) whether purchases were for appropriate
material goods by a Commissioner in the normal functioning of a Commissioner office; (b)
whether there is evidence of a valid work product when a service is purchased; and (c) what
evidence exists that meals and travel expenses werefor County business.
The review was conducted in accordance with the following DeKalb County policies in effect during the
procedural scope period, 2004 to 2014: Purchasing Card Policy, March 2004; Mobile Policy; Travel
Policy; and the Retention 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 aSIOfJ UIY30, ~01O.
Purchase Card Polley
I
The 2094 Purchase Card Policy states that "DeKalb County has established aPurchasing Card (P-Card)
program that allows designated employees the ability to purchase selected, business-related goods and
services whose value is less than $1,000. This program is intended to be an alternative method for the
purchase of small dollar, miscellane?us ~xpense ma~erials and services. These policies and procedures
apply td the use of theBank of Amenca VisaPurchasmg CardlP-Card. .
DeKal~ County is exempt 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 I status onprocured services and purchases.
The 2004 Purchasing Card policy has been updated and was replaced in April 2014. For the purposes of
l
our review, we followed the guidelines of the March 2004 policy which was in effect for the entire scope
period.
61Page
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
Travel Policy
The DeKalb County Travel Policy, revised April 2006, sets out the guidelines for approval for travel and
training expenses incurred while conducting authorized County business.
Mobile Policy
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 aBlackberry, PDA or
wireless card with monthly service paid by the department. Wireless devices and plans areto be used for
official County business only.
Records Retention Policy
The DeKalb County Records Retention Policy is filed with the Division of Archives and History, Office
of Secretary of State as of J uly 30, 2010. The policy and subsequent revised schedules stipulate the
mandatory minimum retention period for accounting records including: Accounts Payable Files; Invoices;
J ournal Entries; J ournals and Registers; Travel - Registration Fee Payments; and Travel Authorization
and Reimbursement Records. All stated documents have aretention classification of "Temporary - Short
Term". The stated accounting records have a 5-year minimum retention stipulation; the travel related
documentation has a4-year minimum retention stipulation.
This procedural review factored the County's 5-year minimum record retention policy inclusive of the
limited availability of any records prior to 2009. As a result, the transaction logs and receipts prior to
2009were limited during our review.
Procedures
P-Card Expense Review
The P-Card review consisted of Board of Commissioners for Districts 1through 7(past and current), their
staff, and the Board of Commissioner's Central Office personnel who maintained aP-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 thefollowing:
1) The P-Card Administrator maintained thetransaction log onamonthly basis.
2) The cardholder attached applicable receipts tothe monthly transaction log.
3) Transactions were for County business related goods and services and/ or appropriate for
department spend.
4) Individual transactions and monthly total transactions did not exceed guidelines established by P-
Card policy.
5) Transactions were approved in accordance with established policy.
71Page
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
Non P-Card Expense Review
We reviewed both vendor payment activity for accounts where the percentage of P-Card expenditures in
relation to the accounts payable transactions was relatively small as shown in Fig. 2, Pi-Card
Expenditures as Percentage of Annual Account Total. This review was targeted on the following
accounts:
6l Other Professional Services
G Other Miscellaneous Charges
& Travel-Airfare
CD Travel-Accommodations/ Hotel and, Training and Conference Fees
We identified select vendors with high payment activity and reviewed supporting documentation to assess
if expenditures were for County business and to the extent possible, actual service or product was
received by the County.
8\Page
-~'---
Del\cllo County Board of Commissioners
Review Results for District 1
District 1
Expense Account
Other Professional Services
Postage
Other Tel ecommunication Servi ces
Printing Services
Travel- Airfare
Travel - Car Rental
Travel Accomodations/Hotel
Travel - Miscellaneous
. ~ . ~..
Training and Conference Fee: External.
Other Miscellaneous Charges
OperatingSupplies
.Books and Subscriptions
ZOO4-2014
.P~Ci"d Total.
s 1,225.00.
S. 1,404,60
$ 3,163.,79
$.. 1:isi;%:
$ 1,5$8;60'
s2,435;81
s .i,7~:li
$ '.' 427:21'
$'1,525:00:
$ 73,268,81:
s 1Q,i~Q:09
:$, 5;:B6,4~,
Grand Total
Purchase L_, d Review Dis\.. ,~( C
2004 2005
P-Card Total P~Card
$ - $ ..
$ - $ -
$ - $
$ - -s
-
$ - $
:
-
$ - :$' r ,
$ - $,
.
". :-:":.
S :s
' .. _ ... ~
- ::~''''.~~~>-':
$ '$:':.-)+'
...
-
$ $
..
:
- .-
$ $
;~-. :.
- ",
. -
$ - s.
,"'7".:.
:
$ - $ .-
2011 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012
$
2013 2014
P-Card ..P~Card
s - $ - $ -$: ... $ 1,225.00
s 772,30$ 54,93
s
s - $ 559,73
$ 402,96 $ 750,00
$
$ - $ ,. '. $ -$,,-
s 17,64
$
$$ -
$ 817.CXl·$ 356:00
$
$ - '$:'-' $$< ~, $ - '$ -
$ 316,64 $..1;941,83
$
$ - $' 425,60
$ - .$ .>':
s
$ -$.' '::::,
$ -$ 1,713.13
$
s .$;-
$ -$ 17D.2s $ - $--
s 500,00 $, 1;025,00.
$ 3,062.75 $,'3;938,74' $ 4,816,Q7$<6;88S.5(i'. s 7,291,83$ S;74,td7
$ 876,85 $;'1,937,34
$ 18,363,37 $' 16,343:77
$ 4,262,27 .$",3;676,86·. $ 68,00.$ .. i;147,Q3
$ $,'11,98
$ 7,359_83 '$ 10,889.41,
$
$
$
$ 26,611. 97 $ 30,832,32
P-Card
177.34
256,96
3,818.71
1,365,93
2,403,28
9,264,86
Fig. 1-TotaLPi-Card Spend/or District I (April 2004 -April 2014)
Key Observations
• As shown in Figure 1above, P-Card usage did not begin within District 1until 2006, The concentration of P-Card expenditure occurs
within five categories including Operating Supplies, Other Miscellaneous Charges, Travel related expenses, Other Telecommunication,
andBooks and subscriptions, Other Miscellaneous Charges was,observed to include but was not limitedto the following: office supplies,
food for meetings, consulting, public relations, minor technology, website service support, and' expenses for community outreach
communication.
• During our review we noted 1,160transactions totaling approximately $103,665 during the April 2004 through April 2014 scope period,
Based on the documentation provided, approximately 470 transactions (40%) were supported by receipts, The other transactions reflected
approximately 60% which no receipt was observed. Although most activities appear to be County related, without the accompanying
receipts reasonable assurance cannot bedetermined.
• Based on the documentation we reviewed, reimbursements to the County for non-County expenses for E. Boyer totaled $14,351; B.
Lundsten reimbursements to the County totaled $6,494,
9\Page
De. .0County Board of Commissioners Purchase .d Review
Dis. .fT
• 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. Transaction logs were unavailable for all transactions from 2006- 2013. Less than half of transac ion receipts were-
available for the 2006 - 2013 period. Solely, the transaction logs for 2014 were available. Although most activities appear to be County
related, without the accompanying receipts reasonable assurance cannot bedetermined.
• Many, not all of the total P-Card expenses were identified to have a County business purpose. Some P-Card expenses were determined to
be non-County related. District staff reimbursements to the County were noted for various transactions by E. Boyer and R. Lundsten
totaling $20,845 (based on documentation provided during the review) which do not appear to be County business related. However,
without all the accompanying receipts reasonable assurance cannot be determined.
• We noted that 100% of the transaction logs provided for 2014 review lacked an approval signature as directed by the P-Card policy. No
transaction logs were provided for transactions prior to 2014. The lack of signed approval on the transactions logs was observed as
commonplace and occurring frequently within all Districts. A global recommendation was made 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 the
Department Director.
e We observed 68transactions totaling approximately $4,460 with receipts which were not properly exempted from taxes per the P-Card
Policy.
10 I P age
Dek.c"tJ County Board of Commissioners
District 1 2004 -2014
P-Card Toial
$ 1,225.00
.$ 1i404;60.
s 3,163.79
Printing S7rvic::es s "1,'152.96
Travel> Airfare $. 1.S~8.'PO:
Travel . Car Rental .$ 2,435.81
!ra.vel Accomodatlcns/ Hotel s .1,713.13
Travel- Miscellaneous $ 4i7.21
Training and Conference Fee . External .$ ·l.:S.~:O~
Other Miscellaneous Charges .$ 73,268~81
Operating Supplies s lO;520~.09
_~..?_~~_~~~"~~~~.!!~' "'_' 'I-·:::S-"-,-,-~5",,c:;Bo:::· ··:::·~·c:45"4
Grand Total ~$===i=03=,=6=65=··.=·45~'
Expense Acc.ount
Other Professional Services
Postage
Other Telecommunication Services
District 1 2004 -2014
Expe:n~~ Account P-Canf TO,tal
Other Professional Services $"';' i.225.00".
~:~:arg;elecommunic,tion Services .~...,.. .! : : : t·
P.rint!~~~.e.:vice~ S . ':1,"i52~:96~'
Travel- Airfare S 1~~~8~.~
Travel- Car Rental .-S· .;~ ..~.~~;~~.:
T~av~1Accornodatioru/ Hote! s ~;713.13·
Travel- Miscellaneous :$' '42~.•1.1·
T!"inin~ ~~.d C~':Ifer::nce Fee - .Exter~~1 $ lA~;o'o':
.~t.her !",~scella.!:!.~c;>~s c:~~r~es -s ·;']t268:81
Operating Supplie.s. s .10,520.0·9
Booksaoosu~~~'i~Pt~io~n~, __ ~ ~$7-~~,~.:,~··s~:,i30~.·=··~;~~5~·:
Grand Total '$.... 103,665.45'
District 1 2004 -2014
, .
E~pe.ns.~~ccount · ~-C~~~: .j~~.~' ..
Other Professional Services '$ .~;~.~e~_: .
~,?staC:.e .s 1;404.60
.Other Telecornmunlcatlon Services: $." ':~:.~.f~f? ~,;
Printin~ Services :$..... :.;.~; .... : F~~'.~~ ..
Travel- Airfare s<. ,'],,~~~j~} .
Travel- Car Rental .$. . ... '2,435.8L
T~a~el Accornodaticns/ Hctel '$ . . "~1:7i3':i;3:
§ E~~i: : ~: · : ; : , External :$'>,..:!.i.:5;'l'2~~'\4;·5; .. •.
~~o~an~~~~~ripti~. . ~~~~,~~"",~~
Grand Total $: ·'103;665.45·
Purchase L ...J Review Dist..: .1
2004
Account Total
$ 12,356.50
s 45.61
$ 39.00
s
$
s
$
s
$ 25.00
$ (344.70)
$ 413.48
s 144.00
S 12,678.89
2008
Account Total
$ 38,464.00
$ 692.29
$
s 48,868.00
s
$
$
$
S
$ 11,321.07
$ 805.58
S
$ 100,150.94
2012
Account Total
s 30.892.65
S 1,803.95
$ 652.18
$ 5,649.07
$ 817.00
$
$ 316.64
S
S 500,00
$ 18,363.37
$ 4,262.27
$ 876.85
s 64,133.98
2005 2006 2007
P-Card Account P·Card %of ·PeC.rd· . 'Account ·P-Card'%-of-
Spend Total Total Spend Total, Total.
$ S 30,287.50 0% S s 42,>\45.58 0%
s $ 942.05 0% $ $ 221.18 .0%
$ S n/' $ $. n/.
S s n/'
S· $·12,550.00 0%
S $ n/· S $, nf.
S S nla S... s nfa
S s nfa s s. nfa
S $ nfa $ .. $ nfa
s s 3,780.00 0% $
...
$ 1.483.32 .O" A.
$ 3,062.75 $ 44,466.66 7% $ 3,938.74 $ 12;'50.82 32%
s $ 151.15 0% .s $ " fa.
$ S 90.00 0% $ S ·70.00· O"A.
s 3,062.75 $79,717.36 4% $ 3,938.74 $69,220.90 . 6%
2010 2011
P·Card Account P-Card "loaf p.c.rd .Acc~unt P-Card "of·
Spend Total Total Spe~(:I :-:·· Totai. , . Total
$ S 91,950.00 0% s $56,043.63 0%
S $ 46.90 0% '.$ 559)3 s -,:559.73. iOO%
S s nfa $ ,.
.. $ nfa
S S n/' S $ · nfa
S s nla S .425.60 $.. . ~/a .'
$ S nla S - $ of •..
$ S nla $ $ ·n/ a
$ S nfa S $
':'.::
" I i
$ $ nfa $ s
....
.. - nfa .
$ 7,291.83 $ 7,291.83 100% $ 8;744.07. $ 9~s71.54 ., 91%.
s 68.00 $ 201.00 34% s 1,:147.03 $'..1,268.39·· 90%'
$ S n/· s 12.98 $ 12.. 98· .. 100""
s 7,359.83 $99,489,]3 7% S~O,889,41. ·S67,456.27 .. 16%'
P-Card %of
Total P-Card Spend .
...- .1>..-C.riL?,of
AccoVntT9ta'f :;':Total P-Card Spend
0% $ 15,977.:50 iJ o,f,
0"/ 0 $
0%
nla
nfa $". ' '203.40; ·".0%
nfa
nla $. $.' 1;817,05.'.0%
nfa
.$. s . ·895.00· .·0>·0"/ 0"'· 0%
0%
0%
0%
s .. 0%
6,889:50· Sl08;738.97. r / ';~6'"
26,611..97
2009
p-Ce-d Spend
P·Card %of P;Card:." of;
Total :: :"e-Card ~'pend :.: A~c~~~~~T~·~1 .:'.::;rotar-:"
0%
0%
nfa $.
0%
nfa .$
nla
nf·
nf. $
nfa s
$ 4,816.07 43% s.:
0%
nla s
s 4,816.07 50/ .
2013 2014
Account P-Card %of
Total Total
$ 1,225.00 100%
s 17.64 100%
$ nfa
$ (1,524.94) 0%
$ (59.00) 0%
s 1.341.77 13%
$ n/,
$ 256.96 100"/ 0
$ nfa
S 3,818.71 100%
$ 2,17S.14 63%
S 3,286.80 73%
s 10,538.08 88%
300.58
P·Ca,d Spend
P-Card
Spend
1,225.00
17.64 772.30
402.96
817,00
177.34 316,64
500,00
18,363.37
4,262.27
876,85
41% :$_ . 30,83232. S· 66,=.99 '''.:47'',.'·;; $ 9,264.86
Fig. 2- Pi-Card Expenditures as Percentage of AnnuaL Account TotaL
lllPage
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
District Metrics and Breakdown ofP-Card Spend for 2004 through 2014 - By Individual
1;163
% TotalP~Card
'%of ..,..
Transactions
,2004 th~u20i4; District
..' TotalP-Card
. %of
Spend 2004 thru D' trl Transactions
. .' 2014" ' IS rJ ,ctw/ ReceiPts
District 1
Breakdown by Personnel ..
s, '56;321.34, 54% .'. .4%.)' E. Boyer - Commissioner
483, 42%
RLundsten 523·· 45% s '.28,:49~:16 27%;86%'
13% '157
N. McBride
Totals
E.Boyer .,Total
%of
.Spend
Other Professional Services $ 1,225.00 2%
Postage $ 906.90 2%
Other Tel+communication Services $ 1,219.72 2%
Printing S+rvices $ 235.37 0%
Travel - AJ irfare $ 1,598.60 3%
I
Travel - Car Rental $ 2,435.81 4%
Travel - Accomodations I Hotel $ 1,713.13 3%
Travel - Miscellaneous $ 227.60 0%
Training a dConference Fee-External $ 1,440.00 3%
Other M iJ cellaneous Charges $ 35,960.11 64%
I
Operatin~Supplies $ 5,630.76 10%
Books an~Subscriptions $ 3,728.34 7%
.. ." --
'Total; ; ~ 56,321~34"
General ObservatIOns
commis!sioner E. Boyer's P-Card activity represented 54% of the overall District expenditures while
accounting for 42% of the transactions. The concentration of her spending was in Other Miscellaneous
Charges, operating supplies, books and subscriptions.
Extended Review Details
During 'the scope period of 2004 through 2014, approximately $36,000 was expended in Other
Miscellaneous Charges, of which $14,188 was spent for meals and food services. The remainder was
spent for travel, hotels, automobile rentals, and other miscellaneous charges.
No transaction logs were available for our review prior to J anuary 2014. We noted a total 483
transactions during the scope period, of which 462 transactions (96%) were not supported by receipts I
available for our review. Ms. Boyer's P-Card transaction history is part of an investigation for County
expense activity. Accordingly, some transaction support was unavailable for review; without the
accompanying receipts reasonable assurance cannot bedetermined.
12 I P age
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
There were employee reimbursements to the County for various P-Card transactions for approximately
$14,351 based 011 the documentation provided. Based on these reimbursements by Ms. Boyer, it would
appear these were not County business related.
R Lundsten . Total'
.' ·%of
"',
,
Spend
Postage $ 497.70 2%
Other TelecommunicationServices $ 1,944.07 7%
PrintingServices $ 917.59 3%
Travel- Miscellaneous $ 199.61 1%
TrainingandConferenceFee-External $ 85.00 0%
Other MiscellaneousCharges $ 18,068.91 63%
OperatingSupplies s 5,283.17 19%
BooksandSubscriptions $ 1,502.11 5%
. Total
,
}8;498;l(i
,'.. _._,.'
'$'. '
General Observations
R. Lundsten's P-Card activity represented 27% of the overall District expenditures while also accounting
for 45% of the transactions. The concentration of his P-Card expenditures was in support of the office in
Other Miscellaneous Charges, Operating Supplies and Other Telecommunication services.
Extended ReviewDetails
A card holder from 2006 through 2014, we noted Other Miscellaneous Charges includes $10,144 for
meals and catering expenses, $2,065 for minor technology &telecom costs, and approximately $2,810 for
suppliesl Most transactions were observed to be business related and properly supported with receipts.
Mr. LUl~dsten had 520 transactions of which 449 (86%) had supporting receipts; 71 transactions (14%)
had mis1ing receipts.
There 1ere employee reimbursements of approximately $6,494 to the County for P-Card transactions
based 0,the documentation provided. Based on the reimbursements by R. Lundsten it appears these were
t C ty busi lated no OUIll usiness re a e
"
·.%of
N,McBrrde '.'
TOta(
' .............
S~e!1d
Other MiscellaneousCharges $ 18,845.95 100%
I
Total $
..... i8;S45.95
....
Genera Observations
Fonner I employee N. McBride's P-Card activity represented 19% of the overall District expenditures
while also accounting for 13% of the transactions. Other Miscellaneous Charges included $14,920 for
office and technology supplies, $2,396 for meals, $1,510 for subscriptions, municipal affiliation fees,
postage, catering and meeting expenses. We noted that these expenses appear to be County related, but I
can't provide reasonable assurance without having the opportunity review related invoices.
13IPage
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
;Extended Review Details
A card holder from2006 through 2010, we noted all (100%) of the P-card transactions totaling $18,845
were not included on atransaction log. There were extenuating circumstances, which may have impacted
record retention. Ms. N. McBride was a valued employee who became deceased by 2012. Although all
activity appears County related, without the accompanying receipts reasonable assurance cannot be
determined.
14 I P age
I
I
I
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
District 1Summary of Key Transaction Exceptions
I Date Vendor : Amount Comments ...
l.
9-4-2010 University of GA $599.00 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
Bookstore The item was not included on a transaction
log and no receipt was provided.
2. 3-9-2012 Air Tran $187.00 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
The item was not included on a transaction
log and no receipt was provided. This expense
was reimbursed to the County.
3. 5-1-2012 Hyatt Hotels $1,189.50 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
Savannah . The item was not included on a transaction
log and areceipt was provided. This expense
was reimbursed to the County.
4. 5-20-2012 Stars and Strikes $440.00 Charged to R. Lundsten's card. These
expenses had supporting receipts, yet were not
5-20-2012 Stars and Strikes 900.00 on a transaction log. These expenses were
reimbursed to the County.
5. 5-30-2012 Delta Air lines $344.60 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
l" Ticket These 2 airline tickets were not included on a
transaction log and no receipt was provided.
Delta Airlines $344.60 These expenses were reimbursed to the
I
2
nd
Ticket County.
6. 9-28-2012 Hampton $159.48 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
Inn Savannah The item was not included on a transaction
log and a receipt was provided. This expense
was reimbursed to the County.
7. 3-26-2013 Pandora Perimeter $128.40 Charged to R. Lundsten's card. This expense
had a supporting receipt, yet was not on a
transaction log. This expense was reimbursed
to the County.
8.
6r-
2013 Delta Air lines $243.80 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
l" Ticket These 2 airline tickets were not included on a
6- 0-2013 transaction logand no receipt was provided.
I
Delta Airlines $243.80 These expenses were reimbursed to the
2
nd
Ticket County.
9. 10'-9-2013 Summitcove.com $707.00 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
The item was not included on a transaction
I
log and no receipt was provided. This expense
was reimbursed to the County.
10. 1C-18-2013 AT&T Wireless $239.73 Charged to R Lundsten's card. This expense
was not included on a transaction log, yet aI
receipt was provided. Two wireless payments
occurred 111 Oct 2013. Monthly wireless'
expenses ranged from $100 up to $275 to
AT&T.
I
11.
10-22-2013 Enterprise $925.89 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
Rental Car The 2013 transaction was not included on a
transaction log and no receipt was provided.
I
15 I P age
I I
I
- ~,---I _I _
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
1-13-2014 Enterprise $l32.l8 The 2014 transaction was on atransaction log
and a receipt provided. These expenses were
reimbursed to the County.
12. 10-26-2013 AT&T Wireless $274.57 Charged to R Lundsten's card. This expense
was not included on a transaction log, yet a
receipt was provided. Two wireless payments
occurred m Oct 20l3. Monthly wireless
expenses ranged from $100 up to $275 to
AT&T.
13. 12-16-2013 Comcast Cable $50.00 Charged to R. Lundsten's card. This expense
was for internet service installation. This
expense was not on a transaction log, yet a
receipt was provided.
14. 12-16-2013 Able $56.65 Charged to R. Lundsten's card. This expense
Towing Company was for auto towing service charges. This
expense was not on a transaction log, yet a
receipt was provided.
15. 1-5-2014 Delta Air Lines $356.00 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
Both were not included on a transaction log
,
2-3-2014 Delta Air Lines $382.00 and no receipt was provided.
16. 1-31-2014 T Mobile.com
$684.34 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
The item was not included on a transaction
log and no receipt was provided.
17. 2-20-2014 McKendricks $452.31 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.
Steakhouse This transaction was included on atransaction
log; yet no receipt was provided. This expense
was reimbursed to the County.
16 I P age
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review
Non P-Card Expense Review
District 1
For the purpose of this report, a vendor is classified as a person or business receiving payment from
DeKalb County through the Accounts Payable process. Employees (i.e. Commissioner Elaine Boyer)
submitting reimbursement requests through the County's OracleI Expense Systemfor expenses incurred
while conducting County business are shown asvendors.
District I-Top Vendors by Dollars (April2004-Apri\20H)
,".# of~, +... .. $.l'Qtal.:> '," .
.Invoices •·.'J nvoites· 'I"~6iCenat~Range
Total 679,105.04
October 2004 thru August 2010
BANK OF AMERICA NA 1187 $ 106,884.67 May 2004 thru April 2014
OAK GROVE COMMUNICA TlONS 47 $ J une 2004 thru September 2012 100,600.00
83,250.00 September 2009 thru October 2011
LANDMARK COMMUNICA TIONS 12 s 88,918.50 May 2006 thru May 2012
75,925.00 March 2008thru December20!3
M ROOKS BOYNTON 36 $
CONNOR ASTAIRE*
71,521.90 February 2005thru November 2007
62 s
DEBBIE CARROLL 11 $
STEPHANIE EMCBRIDE 32 $ 43,35500 J uIy 2004 thru November 2009
20 $ 26,000.00 March 2009thru October 2010
BOB LUNDSTEN' 23 $ 34,606.99
SCOTT DA VID WYLIE
12,547.50 J anuary 2005 thru April 2013
NET PROGRESSION INC 13,012.00 February 2006thru J une 2009 6 $
11,983.48 September 2013 thru April 2014
ELAINE CBOYER*' 23 $
APACHE POUTICAL
NAZIRMOUSELU MD
3 s
.10,500.00
May 2009 thru J une 2009
3 $
1,465: $
*Note: We identified persons who worked with the Districts on atemporary or consistent basis without
the classification of full time DeKalb County employee. These individuals were identified as having a
1099 filling with the DeKalb County and are considered contract employees. Where available, we
reviewed asample of their invoices and notethe description of professional services,
**Note. We identified full time employees who incurred County business related expenses which were
sUbmittkd through the County's Oracle I Expense System for reimbursement. District personnel can
submit items for reimbursement directly for approval through the Accounts Payable system. These
expens s are not Purchase Card initiated transactions, but instead out of pocket expenses which are
submittFd with supporting documentation, and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Department using
similar tringent guidelines to ensure they arevalid prior to approval and reimbursement.
Comments for Each Vendor
,
Bank of America NA
G> Amount is for total payments to Bank of America for Purchase Card expenditures during the
scope period,
Oak GJove Communications
o Professional media, public relations and public policy consulting services were provided by Oak
Grove Communications from J une 2004 through September 2012. We reviewed two invoices
totaling $7,500 for themost recent periods in 2012 and2009,
Landmark Communications
• Professional web development services were provided by Landmark Communications for the
period between May 2006 and May 2012. We reviewed a J une 2009 invoice with service
17 I P age
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1
descriptions to include " Providing Newsletter Design and Distribution to Community Citizens on
Key Issues. " Thevendor invoice activity reflected arange of $50- $5,124 for the5-year period.
M Rooks Boynton
G M Rooks Boynton received funds from September 2009 through October 2011. At the time of
this report, we reviewed several invoices related to the professional services provided by M
Boynton. We noted that at the time of our review, an ongoing separate investigation which
includes these specific payments and their propriety related to former Commissioner Boyer for
these services. In observation of these circumstances, we limited our review of the related
activity.
Debbie Carroll
fl) The invoice for this expense item was subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removed
fromrecords; no invoice was available for review.
Stephanie E. McBride
G Professional consulting services were provided by Stephanie E. McBride fromJ uly 2004 through
November 2009. We reviewed a J uly 2009 invoice that described services provided as
" Professional Consulting Services, Research and Editing. " S. McBride was said to have also
provided administrative support and community outreach assistance. The vendor invoice activity
reflected arange from$225- $4,500.
Scott D1vid Wylie .
e Professional consulting services were provided by Scott David Wylie from March 2009 through
pctober 2010. We reviewed a March 2009 invoice which described services provided as
['Consulting Constituents; Community Outreach, ' and Providing Demographic Research on
fommunity Issues. "The vendor invoice activity reflected arange from $750 - $2,000.
Net Progression
I
o frofessional services were provided by Net Progression, Inc. dba f2 Technology from February
2005 - May 2009. We reviewed invoices that described the service provided as: " Delegate I
Service License; Access to Delegate software for email and website management. " The vendor
invoice activity reflected arange from$1,334 - $4,000 for the 3-year period.
Nazir Mouselli, MD
Pro essional consulting services were provided by Nazir Mouselli, MD from May 2009through J une
200~. We reviewed 2 invoices which described services as " Consultation Services for Committee For I
a Bltter North DeKalb County. " No further detail for services was available. The vendor invoice
activity reflected arange of $3,000 - $3,750 for the 3-month period.
18 I P age