OeKalb Cpunty Board of

Commissioners Purchase Card Audit
For Your Review By:
-- - Unhappy-T-axpayer &Voter.com
- ----. .~
DEKALB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT NO. 2
. REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES
FOR THE PERIODS APRIL 2004 TO APRIL 2014
I
I
I I
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 2
O.H. PLUNKETT &CO'
9
P;C.
1111 1/ 1/ II/ I 1/ 1/ 1111 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/ 1/
ACCOUNTANTS & CONSULTANTS· 1800 PEACHTREE RD. NW' SUI TE 333· ATLANTA GEORGI A 30309· VOI CE (404) 351-6770' FAX (404) 351-6845
1050 17TH ST. NW' SUI TE 600' WASHI NGTON. DC' 20036 •VOI CE (202) 496-5307' FAX (202) 466-2400 I
EMAI L· olunkett@ohocpa.com WEB· WWW.OHPCPA.COM
DeKalb County Georgia Board of Commissioners
Commissioner District No.2
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 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
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 tec1mologies. The objective of these
I .
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
unintebtional, aneed to refine your internal control framework, or aneed to improve operational
effiCirCies· ..
The crounty's management is responsible for the contents of the database and all related
accounting records. This procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation
standJ rds established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency
ofthe~e procedures is solely theresponsibility ofthe specified party to this report. Consequently,
we m~e no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures as listed in the Table of
Contents either for thepurpose for which thisreport has been requested or for any other purpose.
We ~ere 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
comeItaour attention that would have been reported toyou.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the BOC and its management and
should not beused by anyone other than thosespecified parties.
Atlanta, Georgia
October 3, 2014
I I
z l P a g e
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners' Purchase Card Review
31Page
. - District 2
REPORT ONAGREED-UPON PROCEDURES
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 2
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
e Purchase Card Policy
Q Travel Policy
El Mobile Policy
8 Retention Policy
E. Summary of Procedures Performed.. , ,,., , ,..7-8
8 Purchase Card Expense Review
(9 NDnPurchase Card Expense Review
F, Summary of Findings Purchase Card Transactions.. ,., .. , ,.,. ' ,., ,.,9-11
e General
e Specific
G. Purchase Card Review -Individuals ,.. ,.,.,., .. , " , ,. , 12-14
H. Non Purchase CardTransactions .. ,.. , , , , 15-16
e General
I I
I
., -~ DeKalb Cou-nty Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review D'i'strict 2'- .-•.
Executive Summary - District 2
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 of these 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. The sufficiency of the procedures performed is solely the responsibility of those
parties specified in this 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 are $63 per transaction. J Efficiencies include the cost of vendor maintenance, purchase orders,
wages of employees that process payments, and resources for check disbursements. Inconsistent
compliance with P-Card policies provides a less than desirable internal control environment and reduces
level of transparency 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
identified 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
accounting logs were never prepared or submitted in accordance with the Policies and Procedures adopted
by the County.
This p-tcedural review took into consideration the County's five (5) year mandatory record retention
policy I~nclusive ofthe limited availability of any records prior to 2009. Additional efforts were therefore
made t1 secure any documentation still in possession by former employees. Letters were sent to addresses
on fil with DeKalb County Human Resources requesting assistance in providing supporting
docum ntation.
Specifically, our review of District 2 covered a period for which Commissioner Rader held his position
since 2007 after succeeding former Commissioner Gale Waldorff. In total, four (4) persons within the
district were granted purchasing cards. P-Card expenditures commenced in 2006 and totaled $34,606.
Purcha e card usage within District 2steadily increased every year from 2006 through 2010 and reached a
full ye~r high total of $8,394 in 2012.
Individual card expenditures ranged from $85 for H. Flury to $14,461 for C. Enloe. The concentration of
purchase card incurred expenses occurred in Other Telecommunication Services, Training and
Conference Fees, and Other Miscellaneous Charges. Other Miscellaneous Charges was observed to
include, but was 110t limited to the following: other telecommunication; office supplies; food fori
meetings; seasonal contributions to constituent groups, and; web-site hosting.
1www.napcp.org
41Page
I .
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners-PUrchase Card Review - District 2 .
Our review of District 2P-Card expenditures showed limited deficiencies inthe availability of supporting
documentation having provided 77% of receipts for the 424 transactions identified. The 99 transactions
without receipts totaled $6,348; approximately $3,112 occurred within the 5-year retention period. We
did observe and note that all charges without receipts appeared to be for County related business.
Inclusion of receipts for alJ transactions per policy guidelines remains an improvement opportunity within
the District. As awhole, we note District 2's general compliance with established County policies and
procedures.
Policies and procedures provide a valuable management control on P-Card operations. Mandatory
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 beimplemented for all authorized users. A periodic reassessment of these
policies and procedures should beviewed as ameans by which internal controls are enhanced on the use,
authorization, and documentation and approval process. Further, there should be areview of the P-Card
system integration with the County's organizational structure. The current policy is vague on which
management position is accountable and appropriate to review and approve Commissioner level
transactions.
51Page
I I
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 2
Agreed-Upon Procedures Defined
An agreed-upon procedures engagement differs from a financial statement audit. A fmancial statement
audit is a"snapshot" of the financial picture of an organization at apoint intime. In an audit, the auditor
obtains reasonable assurance whether the financial statements arefree 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 on whether the financial statements
are presented fairly inconformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
This engagement, an agreed-upon procedures engagement, is defined as one inwhich weperform specific
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 inafinancial statement audit. .
GeneJ Information
On AP~il 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
Governbent Audit professional to:
1. Review the expenditures for the past tenyears (2004 through 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 were for County business.
The re iew was conducted in accordance with the following DeKalb County policies in effect during the
proced ral 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 af ofJ uly 30, 2010.
Purcltbse Card Policy
The 2d04 Purchase Card Policy states that "DeKalb County has established aPurchasing Card (P-Card)
progra]n that allows designated employees the ability to purchase selected.rbusiness-related goods and
servic~s whose value is less 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 useofthe Bank of America Visa Purchasing Card/ P-Card. I
DeKalb County is exempt from paying State of Georgia sales tax. This infers that DeKalb County staff I
may need to provide written documentation to vendors and service providers for recognition of the
exempt status onprocured services and purchases.
6/ Page
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 2
The 2004 Purchasing Card policy has been updated and was replaced in April 2014. For the purposes of
our review, we followed the guidelines ofthe March 2004 policy which was in effect for the entire scope
period.
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 ournallEntries; J ournals and Registers; Travel -Registration Fee Payments; and Travel Authorization
and Reimbursement Records. All stated documents have aretention classification of "Temporary -Short
Term". he stated accounting records have a 5-year minimum retention stipulation; the travel related
documertation has a4~year minimum rete~ltionstipulation.
This procedural review factored the County's 5-year minimum record retention policy inclusive of the
limited lavailability of any records prior to 2009. As a result, the transaction logs and receipts prior to
2009 wbre limited during our review.
procedhres . .
P-Card Expense Review
The P-I ard review consisted of the Board of Commissioners for Districts 1through 7 (past and current),
their st~ff, and the Board of Commissioner's Central Office personnel who maintained aP-Card for any
period Ibetween 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
cardho~der transactions, cardholder statements, invoices, receipts and transaction logs to determine the
following: .
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 2
Non P-Card Expense Review
We reviewed 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, P-Card
Expenditures as Percentage of Annual Account Total. This review was targeted on the following
accounts:
'" Other Professional Services
e Other Miscellaneous Charges
Q Travel-Airfare
• 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.
81Page
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review
Review Results for District 2
District 2
District 2
Expense Account
Othe r Professional Services
Postage
Other Telecommuncation Services
Printing Services
Travel M Airfare
2004:2014
-
P-~.rd Total .
$500:00
s 322.44
$ ~,909.09
$ 339.16
$1,615.70
$662.80
$ "16.00
$ 449:69'
s ..6,~.40
s ~0,5i3.47
s 3,'69nO
'$ . '60,65
$ ,. 'a;i6i,24
2004 2007 2008 2009 2006 2010 2013 2014 2005 2011 2012
39.00 $. 13.80 $
.:$ :. • $ $" $ 500.00 $:' - $ -
$ - $
s • 44.28 s .56.9i $ 18.80'$ "'25.62 s 115.20 8.82
Travef - Car Rental
J I .av.el~ Per Diem
Travel - Miscellaneous
Training and Conference Fee· External
Othe r Mlsce ll ane ous Charges
Operating Supplies
Food and Groceries
$
$ $ - $
's - $ 360.00 $753.81 $ 1,294.19'$. . .. :1,268.60 $ 1,287.78 s. 1,274.54 $
$ - $ - $ $ 180.98 0 $ 90.00 $. 46.80 $
$. - $ - $ $ s: 1,020.10, $ 595.60 $ - $
,...
s: $" $ .. $ 161,28'$' .:., $ 501.52
s - $
670,17
21.38
$ $ - $
$ $'> - $;,' - ,,$ $ ,'.. - $ - s: 16,00 s
$ $ - $
46.34
$ - s - $ t- .-c,' 'k 33.25 $ .157.88 $ 96.20
$' .2,287.93 $
$. 110.36 $ 52,00
$ $ , $
'$''''; $ - $': '. -.. $' 1,-745.40 .S:· .. ' '., 1;"060.00 $ 1,659.00 $ '. 1,219.00 $ 665.00
$ $ - $
.$,'930.38 $ 976.12 :$1,305.i3· $ 1,680'26 s .: "v "'1,220.74 s 1,730.29
'S.:: 2542i $ 111.91$·. 391.45 $ 701:ii $ 647.13 $ 1,188.00 198,99 s.. .167.29, $
346.18
36.91
Books and Subscriptions 65.00
$ $ - $
$.'. &O,{;5,$
Grand Total $, ."34,605.74 1,865.46
$ $ .. - $
Fig. 1-Total P-Card Spend/or District 2(April 2004 - April20J4)
Key Observations
$ $. - $
'$-'1i695S:::;41O.00S:· '12800 $ 322.95 $'" I58:34 s 1,130.00 $' "320.00 $
" 284.33 '.$ 1;355.82 $"1,858:03 's 3;235:41 s 6,638.32'$ ". '5,458.41, $ 8,393.59
-.;.
"."
s: 5;516.37 $
.:.: ":,::.::;. ~ '",<:: '.::
As shown in Figure 1above, P-C<I!~thsage:d~clnot beginwithin DistO.cfr\l{ltil 2006. The concentration of P-Card expenditure occurs
within five categories. Other Mi~~Mlaneous'C4<l:rges was 6b$~r:y:§~toin~lhd~the following: other telecommunication; office supplies;
food for meetings; seasonal contribbt~8P7 to constituent groups;M.4~website hosting.
~~£~:~~':.,». / :-:>' '",;,.:\'
During our review we npted, 424.transa~tib~S t9UltJ .ng;a,ppr()ximat61Y$34,605.74 during the April 2004 through April 2014 scope period.
Based on the docuITl~n.:tatidh' p:fd:\ii~.e4, 77o/ ~::-o~iransacti6n~.;.\¥~r~supported by receipts. The remaining 23% (99 transactions) had no
receipts or other Stipp§rling docum~httwacco'fd~ce with th~<CQ~nty's P-Card policy. Although all transactions appear County related;
without accompanyiiig'receipts or othert'of!aboratlve evidence, reasonable assurance could not bedetermined .
. . ", "; ~:':-"
$ $ $
.. ::.: .
•• Per P-Card policy, transaction logs are to besubmitteclmonthly, include a listing of all transactions and, signed by the appropriate
personnel as evidence of its r~v.i.~w. and approval. Our review and assessment found approximately 20% of transactions were not included
on the transaction logs as directedb.y.p~Card policy.
s
• We noted that 99% of the transaction logs provided for review lacked an approval signature as directed by the P-Card policy. The lack of
signed approval on the transaction logs was observed as commonplace and occurring frequently within most 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
s .$ -< $
$
$ s: $
---------
-----
Del\alb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 2
policy states the cardholder's "Department Director" is to sign the transaction log. Clarification will be provided within the Districts that
Commissioners areto signthe logs inthe stead of aDepartment Director.
. " "
. ::." .
. ~',
.-"':
.,
..~.:
l OTPage
District 2 u,-"alb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review
District 2 2004-2014
P-urdTotal
$ 500.00
$ 32244
$ 6.909.09
$ 339.16
$ 1,615.70
$ 662.80
$ 16.00
s 449.69
$ 6,~40
s 10.523.47
$ 3.697.10
s 60.65
s 3.161.24
$ 34,605.74.
Expense Account
Other Professional Services
Port~ge
Other Telecommuncation Services
Printing Services
:rr~vel- Airfare
Travel- Car Rental
Travel -p~rD~e.m
Travel- Mscellaneous
Trilining andConfeeeoce Fee -hternal
Other Miscellan~ous C~~r~es
Operating, Supplies
FoodandGr~c~!i~s
.B~~~.~. a!,.? _ ~.;t.,? s~p.!i2.':'..s.
Grand Total
District 2
EKpen;:;.eA~oun~
Other Professi0.nal Services
Posta~e
Other telecornmuncatton Services
P~i~!in~. ~«:rvi ~e.s
Travel-A!t!<lre
!rav.-:I. -Sa~_ R~n~1
Travel •Pe~ Oi e.,:"
Travel -Mscellaneous
Tr-;in·i·~g·~~dC~·~f;~~.~.~e f.~~-Exte~'~i
~ther ~sce!'_ a,:,e? us Charges
O~era!ingSupplies
Foodan.~Gro.'7!i~~
.~~'!.~ ~~2.~~~.i.~t.i~~.~_
Grand Total
P-Card Total.:
.S 500.00'
$ 3i2A4
$ 6.909.09
$ 339.'16
S 1;615.70
$ 662.80
's 16.00
s 449.69·
S 6.348.40
$ lo,S2:i~7'
S 3,697.10
$ 60.65
S 3.16U4
$. 34.605.74.
District 2 2004·21)14
2005
P~Card%of
Total
2004 2006 2007
P-Card %of
P-card Send Ao::ountTotal Total P·(ardS end Ac:countTotal
s $ 18,610.89 0''< $
s.
13.089.58
s 39.00 s 76.00 51% $ 44:28 $ 44.28
S $ n/. S S 235.00
$ s n/. S $
s s n/. .$ $
$ s n/. $ $
s $ n/. s ..... $.'
S $ n/. s .$..'
,S. $ 5,203.33 0"" $. S' .. 2565.95
'S'· 46.34 $ 110.06 42% $ . 930.38 S 2.126.38
"S':: 198.99 $ 198.99 100% s 254.21 S: 2028.41
$ .•..
s n/. $ $
$ $ 35200 0'.< $ 126.95 s.' 392.95
s 284.33 .s 24,551.27 1% s 1.35S.82 $ • '20.482.55.
n/.
s:
.0'''
P-(ard%ot
Total AttountTotal p·Card Send, P-Card 5 end AccountTotal
20.746.50
9:-20-
.$
$
$'. . 15,797.80
.. ~
': . .5 o/ a··· 50.00
s S , n/ a n/.
852.1.1
n/.
n/.
s
s
0'"
·n/ a
$' .
$.•
s
$ .
n/.
.nhi
n/.
n/.
S" ..
S
s
$
515.00
280.03
.. '0'''
'0''';'
1,220.45
135.07
...l9a43· .: .$ $ 318.67
253.00 0'.< $ .
.. " '$ '1.8.091.71
32%
22..7B2.B9
100'",
0'",
n/.
nla
n/.
n/ •
n/.
0'",
.44%
n/.
P·Card 50end
P·Cnd%of
Total
6,624.52
, " 2!llD 2011
P·Card % of
ACc.ou';tTot.ll Tot3l P:~rdSDend 'Aa::ountTotal
S ·20.24S.00
""
$ s 9.494.38
s . .5.00 100''< s ·'15'.62 $ 25.61
$ 1,292.44 100% S· 1.268.60. s
..
1,698.81
s 696.67 26%
....
.0 $ 12.5.00
$ n/. S 1.020:10
'$: .. '
1.0lD.10
S n/. S.· S
$ 21.9.00 0'.< $. . '$ . 12.4.41
$ 33.25 100''' S· "", 157.88 s- 157.88
$ 1 745.40 100''' $ 1.060.00 $. 2.988.50
$ 3,750.n 45% $ ."i;:UO.74 $ .2;593.83
$ 701.21 100''' $. 647.13 $. 1.279.02
s n/. s-. $'
s 32295 100'''
.s
5a34 $' 931.34
$ 29,OlL69 13% s .. 5,458.41
.s 20,438..89
.~'...
2014
P-Card '%of
Ao:ountTotal Total
$ 1,600.00 0'.<
s 8.82 100'"
s 670.17 100%
$ 21.38 100'"'
$ n/.
$ n/.
s 467.88 0%
$ 127.36 41%
$ 819.00 81%
s 1.948.29 18".<
$ 36.91 100'''
s n/.
$ 410.00 16%
$ 6,lO9.81 31%
2008
p·card Seend Account Total
$ 13.600.00
$
s
$ 9.77
$
s
s
s
S 2776.04
976.12 $ 1,095.52'
111.91 s . 305.02
s
410.00 S 55LOO
1,498.03 $' . lB,337.35
2!J 12 ..
n/. .$':"
-t. $" . '.13.360'00 (J ''' $ 500.00
n/·
56.92' :$::> _.. 2,857.39' . 2"'" -. s 5.00
. 753.81· '$. ...:"753.81. 100'''' s 1.294.19 n/. .5
.. $.. .'3.000.00' ..' 0'" .. s 180.98 0%
I .
s
-.s. ., .... ·'·n/ a-.- .
$. ':288.00' " '(J '''
n/.
n/.
16~28 $" .
'$ .'
n/. .$ . .: ...s:. 33.25
.s-.. 1.745.40
89% 1.305.13', 's 6.108.58 '2.1% 's ,",'1.680.26
$ .. .391.45 '$ ":913:25·... 43"'< ..-,.,' $ -c- 701.21
ri/ a. 's.: . , .. : ,'-·c.·· ..•. :.;",n/•....
$.... . 836.00' '87% ' $ .'. 728.00 .s 74% 322.95
'$ 3.235.41, 8"'<
.. ",,;.--::- .
', "
": P-Ca!d ~ of :.\ ..~:~,.:.; .. {.:~~~. ~:::~::'~.~: ...;,>:--:~..:: _ ,,:.~.;: .. _ _ .' , .
b:pens.e. Aa:oU!l:~ P-Card Total p·c.ard S~end Ac:countTotal ·Total.. P..6·;d·Sn'~~a::: ActiJ unt."fotal· .:-;:. ': :L:··:ip~cai"d%·of.Total· .' P·Card 50end
Other prcfesstcnat Services $' SOO.oo '$'" .... . $ 27.840.00 0''< '. $ .. ,'. ."'.".: ..':.",<...'. :13.172:22 .; .. ,. .iJok.':· •.... :..... S
Postage ... - .... .•.. $ 3'2i.44 " .S·· ...,'; 115.20 . S 115.2.0 lCX1'..,(,·· $' 13.8)· ~::;:.~. :,;:'~'i":;~:!.2l.:80' :-- 61%·... . $
OtherT,:.I~~~~un~t!on S~.!Vic.es S 6,909.09 $ 1,287.78 $ 1,349.09 95% '$ .. ,'.1,274.54 $:.~: ..::i; •.ii! y':. 1;274."54-· l000~" $
PrintingServices $' 339.16 S 90.00 S ..' 90.00 1000"'(' $ ·.46.8:1', $-. ;,=:'.•:,~~,~.~;,~~~:: ~.8b' ; '."i ... -. 1()(1>-':: .:-:~'<'.;' $
Travel. Airfare s 1,615.70'$ 595.60 S 595.60 100""" $:.: S.,~.:: ,:;;,- ~ .•',1_ ;.. ·n/a·. $
Travel-Car Rental ·S ·'·66i80 ·.S·· 50L52 $ n/ a $.'~~..... .:~:'$: ::::'~;~: :-,=,,";:~:':':>::': i::'- ;,~. :.~:.'.:,n/a· .:.::; ,:.; "::' .. $
Trav~!•~e.r ~je.f!1 $. 16.00' .:S· : $ 119.77 b"A. 's '; " 16.00 ·S·.": ;f'~;~"?~ :·£':.;16.00.,·' >~~.- ;;::·~~:.160%· :.:-; ; :...:.::l $
rrave!- Misce~lan~o.us .S 44~.69 s 96.20 107.20 90"" .$ ~10.36 $;: -» ". :.'" .:. :':.110.36' .:.'.::.:; ...,,;. "·lOcf.-' '.-. .' .. :'" $ 52.00
Trainingand Conference Fee-External $ 6,348.40·: $ "1,659.00 4,636.00 36"" '$:. ·1;2l.9.00 $:.':,,~':,;' ::' ., tii9:oo' ~.100"ft; ..; .: -; $ 665.00
Other Mis~~I·la.~eous·Charg~s· S 10;5:23.47: .. f-$~_ -,1.",73~·0~:19~fL-_ -,3",.25=5.=-29"+-:5,=,"'=·:<,:-,-~$c.-·'-,,;-,2.,,,2,:8,,:,i=93:-1'r.SS"'··· ~f;:-'c: ~",·Y:.,;·2c:.9=· 34
S
·11.:-·
f
:·(c.,·'",·:·:; :.; :; :"'· ~':,:.1"'=· :<'0",..' T",...;:.-+~S _ _ ==346~.1,,-8+7 -'=~'+-'=:--l
Open.tin.~~~p'~I i~.s. S 3.697.10' $ 1,188.0:'-: ~.$ 1.188.00 100'"--' .$....'... 157.29· :$:·.:.; ~; ; -'-i-·; :~::·:·~·.1.67.i9:·· ,. 100""'·· S 36.91
~oodand~ro~erie~ ·S· 60.65 S ' .. $'::: n/a S .:': :G6;6S·::~-;'::··:~~.i·'~".~:~.~:.:- '.~,~"/ \.-:.:.:. n/a·:. .•.. s
~~~k.!.~!Etions _ _ .._ _ ~$;---,-:,3".1=6=-1.::24:-t' $ 1.130.00 "$.. 1.130.00 100'-'. -s .320.0()' '$>':/ '''': ,"; 320.00 .,,;'. ···.100'''······ $
erand'rotat $ 34.605.74 s 8.393.59 s : 40.426.15 21% $ S.SU;.37' 's .,. s , •• 19.283.23 ,. "29% ..: $
8.82
670.17
21.38
65.00
Fig. 2 - Pi-Card Expenditures as Percentage of AnnualAccount Total
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 2
District Metrics and Breakdown ofP-Card Spend for 2004 through 2014 -By Individual
J . Rader -Commiss ioner
154 36%$ . ·12j83.77 35% ,'.,92%·
District 2
Breakdown by District Personnel '.
I TotalP-Card .... r. otaiP-Card % of .. 0/ 0
. %ioe / I
Transactions .' .. ' . Spend 2004thru , District Transacti.ons
.2004 thru2014 I~Jstnct .2014," .w/ Receipts
C. Enloe
po .•.. ,. 40%$':."14; 460.5,7 42% '''68%····
H. Flury . 4 1%$ '.' .':,,",85.34 0% .0%
D. Schneider
96 23%$:7,876.015 23%.; 67%
$
34;605.74 ...
Totals
J . Rader
Tot~I'•.•<' ..
%of .:
,.
Spend'
Other Telecommunication Services $ 3,995.76
;33%
Travel -Airfare $ 1,615.70
,13%
Travel -Accomodations / Hotel $ 662.80 5%
Travel -Per Diem $ 16.00 0%
Travel -Miscellaneous $. 437.04 4%
Training and Conference Fee -External $ ;<1;81Q40
15%
Other M isceJ laneous Charges $ 2,265.44 19%
Operating Supplies $ 673.98 6%
Food and Groceries ' ",$
41':65 0%.,
Books and Subscriptions :$ 665.00'
;,5%
...
,'$:"
12,183;77 Total. .... .,:
<:...
:
Genera Observations
'.
commi~Sioner Rader's P-Cardactivity represented 35% of the overall District expenditures while
accounting for 36% of the transactions. The concentration of spend was in Other Telecommunication
Servicet Travel and Travel related charges andOther Miscellaneous Charges.
Extended Review Details
Noting the amount of Other Miscellaneous Charges, we reviewed an extended number of recorded
transac~ions and found Tr~veJ and Travel related expense, Other Telecommunication Charges and
Traininr and Conference Fee-External were incorrectly coded.
Policy and Procedures Compliance .
I
For the missing receipts reviewed, we note they were county business related, however, without
supporting receipts reasonable assurance was limited. Missing invoices were primarily related to parking
expenses and inaggregate totaled $157.
12 I P age
DeKalb County Board of Commissioner~' Purchase Card Review District 2
C. Enloe Total
. %of
Spend
Other Professional Services $ 500.00 3%
Postage $ 269.64 2%
Other Telecommunication Services $ 1,294.80 9%
Printing Services $ 180.98 1%
Training and Conference Fee-External $ 3,639.00 25%
Other Miscellaneous Charges $ 5,143.98 36%
Operating Supplies $ 2,184.17 15%
Food and Groceries $ 19.00 0%
Booles and Subscriptions $ 1,229.00 9%
Total·· $ ·····.~4i460.57
Gene..! Observations"
EmpIOy~e C. Enloe's P-Card activity represented 42% of the overfill Distri;t:expenditures while also
ac? ounti/ ng for 40% of the. t~ansactions. The concent~'ationo~herP-C~rd expen~itUres was in Other
MIscellaneous Charges, Training and Conference Fee-External-and Operating Supphes.
ExtendL Review Details .' .... "'-.
We not d Other Telecommunication Charges, Training and Conference Fee-External and Operating
Supplies were classified as;OtherMiscellaneous~Charges,; .
We noted that 32% of transactions fromNovember~O;66 to Apri12014 had no supporting documentation
along with P-Card transaction log report. In total;~$3,532 in total transactions did not have receipts;
$1,792 of that occurred after 20.09. Wt{observed the description of transactions with missing receipts and
note thfY appe.ar~dto be county-business- related, however, without supporting receipts reasonable
assuran' ewas limIted.; .' .
. .
.85;34
J I. Flury
%of.
Total" ,
" 'SPllnd -:» .'.
Postage 39.00 46%
Other Miscellaneous Charges. . ' .I. $ 46.34 54%
. Total ".$ .'
General Observations
H. Flury's P-Card activity was limited during her time as afull-time employee. We reviewed the detail of
the 4transactions and notethat they all appeared to befor County related business.
13I Page
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 2 ..
Extended Review Details
A card holder in 2006, we noted transactions totaling $85.34 were not included on aP-Card transaction
logreport, andwithout accompanying receipts.
Policy and Procedures Compliance
Monthly P-Card Transaction logs and supporting receipts were missing from substantially all of the
months reviewed. Therefore, expenditures not supported by appropriate documentation could not be
asserted as County related business expenses.
'.
':,
0/ 0 of'
D.Schneider ...... ·.Total·.·
Spend .
. '
Other Telecommunication Services $ 1,618.53 21%
Printing Services $ 158.18 2%
:0;
Travel- Miscellaneous $ 12.65 .ci%·
Training and Conference Fee -External $ 899.00. 11%
Other M iscelJ aneous Charges $ 3,081.51 19%
Operating Supplies $ 838.95 11%,
._ ".
16% Books and Subscriptions $
..:~. ~
1,267.24
Total
. '
$. .7,876~O6
.-
Genera I Observations
Employ eeD. Schneider's P-Card activity represented 23% of
. . ." .
the overall District expenditures while also
accoun~mg for 23% ofthetransactIOlls:The concentration ofherP-Card expenditures was in support of
the offire in Other Miscellaneous Charges:· ".
Extended Review Details
Transactions from May 2007:to March: 2014, we noted that 33% of transactions had no supporting
documentationalong with P-CardJ ransactiou log report.
'",' ..
Policy and Procedures Compliance
Monthly P-Card Transaction logs and supporting receipts were missing from 2007 to 2009 for the months
reviewbd. Based onthe transaction 'and vendor descriptions reviewed, the expenditures appeared to befor
County! related business; however without the availability of actual receipts for review, reasonable
assurance is limited.
14 I P age
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 2
Non P-Card Expense Review
During the scope period of 2004 - 2014, we reviewed invoices from larger volume District 2 vendor
activity to ascertain the nature of expenses or services provided. All paid vendor invoices reviewed were
identified as a County business related expense or service. The vendors provided a variety of services
including the following: graphic design, public relations consulting, travel services for County staff,
other consulting services, printing, catering for government meetings, technology equipment suppliers,
office supplies, and other services. No unusual activity was noted for the vendor invoice activity
reviewed.
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 J eff Rader)
submitting reimbursement requests through the County's Oraole-Ilixpense System for expenses incurred
while conducting County business are shown as vendors.iWe-notevendor activity prior to 2007 was
incurred during aprior administration to Commissioner Raden's current.administration.
BANK OF AMERlCA NA 419 s 33.950.24 May)OQ4 thru April 2014
HEA THE< FLURY" .i " 91 s -".29.960.00 A pril'2.~Q7ttHu Apri12014
KIlPATRICK STOCKTON LLP <·,',4.· $··.·28.720.19 J uly 200ihhwoJ une 2006
PARK PRIDE A TLANTA INC'4: ':', .$.:," 20,030.00 February 200iii~iuSeptember 20J 2
NET PROGRESSION INC . ,C' 5' '~;$'. 17.000.00 J anuary 2005 thru September 2008
BLEAKLY ADVISORY GROUP 3 ''$;-.. 15.705.00 November 2007 tbru May 20]0
SCOTT BENNETT 2 s 9,332.22 J uly 2013 thru August 2013
J EFFREY A RADER" I " ',8\ $'.,.6.354.48 March 2008thru April 2014
DEBORAH SCHNElDE<" " .... -. 28; ..'. ,.$ .6;3.00,00 February 2005 thru December 2013
DA VIS FOX I 2 s: 6.000.00 May 2010 thru October 2010
Total '.639 s .1.73,352.13
I
*Note: We identified persons-who worked for the Districts onatemporary or consistent basis without the
classification of full time Dels.alb Cdi.lrityerp,ployee. These individuals were identified as having a 1099
filing with Del{albCQunty and."a.re'consi<i(m~d"professional service providers. Where available, we
reviewed a sample of theirinvoicesand noted the. description of professional services to include: IT
servicesl,professional writing and public relations Consulting, website design and maintenance, and
community organization and strategy.
**NoteJ We ideiltified full timeernployees who incurred County business related expenses which were
sUbmittbd through the County'sOrac]e IExpense System for reimbursement. District personnel can
submit iitems for reimbursement directly for approval through the Accounts Payable system. These
expenses are not Purchase 'Card·.iriitiated transactions, but instead out of pocket expenses which are
submitted with supporting documentation and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Department using
similar stringent guidelines to ensure they arevalid prior to approval andreimbursement.
I
I
I
I
I
I
15 I P age
- DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 2
Commknts forEach Vendor
Bank otAmerica NA
G Amount is for total payments to Bank of America for Purchase Card expenditures during the
scope period.
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
e The invoice for this expense item was subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removed
fromrecords; no invoice was available for review.
Park Pride Atlanta Inc.
o A contribution was made to Park Pride Atlanta Inc. ,"fgr the Friends in the Projects within
District 2", per the December 2012 invoicefor $10,OQO'whic;hwas reviewed. Total funds paid to
Park Pridebetween 4invoices was $20,080.
Net Progression Inc.
Q The invoice for this expense item was subject to the 5-year retention.policy and was removed
fromrecords; no invoice was available for review. . ,.
Bleakly Advisory Group
e Professional consulting services were provided by the Bleakly Advisory Group. We reviewed a
J une 2010 invoice for $1,425 witlradesciiptipll of servicesincluding: "Meeting with New Broad
Street Financing regarding the Financing Pl~hlor the Doraville OM Site; and Consulting for
Economic Development.Project. "
..
Scott B nnett
$ Legal services wereprovidedt? the Commissioners' Office by Scott Bennett, Attorney at Law
fromJ une.2013 -J uly2013;Wefeviewed twoinvoices for $6,535 and $2,797, Each invoice was
for Commissioner R;l.d~t's,silan~;cif;serviCes'jointly provided to Rader and District 6
.CommissionerGannon. The.observed invoicedescription was "Legal research and preparation
of-motion to dismiss.ifinalize-post hearing brief preparation of application to appeal, finalize
motion to dismiss, etc.
Davis 1f'0x .
e Planning services were provided by Davis Fox fromMay 2010 -October 2010. We reviewed an
email from Mr. Fox to' Commission Rader requesting payment for "Completed work
encompassed in the Scope . of Services ...for the Shallowford Corridor Planning Study." The
amount duefor the work performed was $3,000; cost of all services provided was $6,000,
16 I P age