DeKalb County Board of

Commissioners Purchase Card Audit
For Your Review By:
- - -,U nhappvTaxpaver &Vote-r.com
----
----------
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
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 6
O.Ha ~LUNKETT & CO., P.c.
" " " " + = 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111
ACCOUNTANT & 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
EMAI L. plunkett@ohocoa.com WEB' WWW.OHPCPA.COM
DeKal~County Georgia Board of Commissioners
Commissioner District No. 6
DeKalt County, Georgia
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ONAGREED-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, aneed to refine your internal control framework or aneed 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 theAmerican 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 thepurpose for which this report hasbeen 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 beenreported 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 those specifiedparties.
Atlanta, Georgia
October 3,2014
21Page
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 CardExpense 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
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. Theobjective 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 inthe normal functioning of aCommission office; (b) whether there is evidence of ava 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 2ob4
through April 2014. The sufficiency of the procedures performed is solely the responsibility of thdse
parties specified inthis 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 fromP-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 lessthan 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 from2009 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 I ne
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 inaccordance 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 inpossession 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 heldsince
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 sinceP-Card purchases commenced in2006.
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 6total 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.org
41Page
1
DeKalb cluntv Board of Commissioners Purchase Card 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 awhole, the District folIo d
establish Idpolicies and procedures for P-Card purchases. Where documentation support was missing, e
observed that thetransactions appeared to beCounty business related.
As awhole, wenote 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 ameans by which internal controls are enhanced onthe use,
authorization, and documentation and approval process. Further, there should be areview of the P-CJ rd
system ihtegration with the County's organizational structure. The current policy is vague on whIch
management position is accountable and appropriate to review and approve Commissioner Ie el
transactions.
51Page
Dekalb Tunty Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review
Agreed-Upon Procedures Defined
An agreed-upon procedures engagement differs from a financial statement audit. A financial statem nt
audit is al" snapshot" of the financial picture of an organization at apoint intime. In anaudit, the aUd~' or
obtains reasonable assurance whether the financial statements arefreeof material misstatement, exami es
eVidencelsupporting the financial statements, and assesses both accounting principles used and over I I
financial statement presentation. The auditor then renders an opinion onwhether the financial stateme~ts
areprese ted fairly inconformity with generally accepted accounting principles. .
This enJ gement, anagreed-upon procedures engagement, is defined as one in which weperform speci IC
procedures and report findings. We didnot 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 amore detailed level
than is customary inafinancial statement audit.
General Information
On April 22, 2014, the BOC passed aresolution 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 thepast ten years (2004 through 2014) by each member of theBo 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 andtravel expenses were for County business.
The review was conducted in accordance with the following DeKalb County policies ineffect 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 J uly 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 theBdnk of America Visa Purchasing CardlP-Card.
DeKalb County is exemJ t from paying Stateof 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 onprocured services andpurchases.
61Page
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 aBlackberry, PDAlor
wireless Icardwith monthly service paid by the department. Wireless devices and plans are to beused 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 J uly 30, 2010. The policy and subsequent revised schedules stipulate he
mandatory minimum retention period for accounting records including: Accounts Payable Files; Invoi es;
J ournal Entries; J ournals and Registers; Travel - Registration Fee Payments; and Travel Authorizat on
and Reil~bursement Records. All stated documents have aretention classification of " Temporary -Sl' ort
Term" . The stated accounting records have a5-year minimum retention stipulation; the travel rei, ed
documentation has al4-Ylarminimum 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.' ted of Board of Commissioners for Districts 1through 7(past and current), tf eir
staff, and the Board of C, mmissioner's Central Officepersonnel who maintained aP-Card for anyperiod
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 AdlJ inistrator maintained thetransaction log onamonthly 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) Individual t~ans~ctionsandmonthly total transactions didnot exceed guidelines establishedby P-
Card policy. I
5) Transactions were approved in accordance with established policy.
71Page
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:
I I Other Professional Services
I I Other Miscellaneous Charges
e Travel-Airfare
•• Travel-Accommodations/Hotel and, Training and Conference Fees
We identified select vendors with high payment activity andreviewed 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.
81Page
De.c...» County Board of Commissioners Purchase , .d Review
Review Results for District 6
District 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 $ 135.00 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 ng and Conference Fee - Extern $ 5,216.99
Other Miscellaneous Charges s 12,596.-2..5
Operating Supplies $. ,,5,625.06
.F.~odandGroceries S 7.75
Books-a-nd Subscriptions s 1,013:64
P-Card Total
GrandTotel ,-,$::...' -, , ---= 2 : ; ; .: 6 ; .: : .; 3 i: ; ..7 ':;:e2l" ,,· ...••
Fig. 1-Total Pi-Card Spend for District 6(April 2 004 - April 2 014)
Key Observations
•• As shown in Figure 1above, 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, andwebsite 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 $250andwere each identified ashaving abusiness 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 onthetransaction logs as directed by P-Card policy. The 12transactions which
werenot included totaled $1,232andwereidentified as having abusiness purpose.
• Wenoted that 99%of thetransaction logsprovided for review lacked anapproval signature as directed bythe 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 areto signthelogs inthestead of aDepartment Director.
91Page
Dei,_ ,o County Board of Commissioners
Purchase '- . d Review
Disi, ..•t 6
• We observed 24 transactions totaling $2,094 which were not properly exempted fromtaxes per the P-Card Policy.
iOl P age
DL :.b County Board of Commissioners
District 6 2004·2014
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
._ ~~~.~~ Sub.!.c.!:~e!.i.9_ ':~_.._ ._ _ .....
GrandTotal
P-Card Total
$ 396,81
$ B48,71
$ i7 9, 6 0
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 2004·2014
~.lIp~'.'~e 'A~c~~nt P-Card Total
Post~~:.. $ . 396:01
Printing ?e.rvi~es $' 84s:7f
Travel -.Airf~~.~ $ Z~9,60
~!a~el -Ac~omod~ti0.n~I HateI s 343.00
!ra.injn~~ .. n.~..~~nfer.e!'7e ~ee - E~~ern $ 5,2iG.:GG
Other ~i.sc.e:II.a!1.e~l:ls<;.harges s '12.596.25"
Operating Supplies $ 5,625:06
Food, a.~d~r?c.e.ri!:~ _ s 7.75
Books and Subscriptions $' 1.013.64
Grand Total $ 26,321,21
District 6 2004 ·2014
P·( a.:dTot.1 _ .
$ 396,81
$ B4B.71
$ 279~60
$
3'i:i.00
$ 5,216,99
$ 12,596';25:
$ 5,625,'66.
..
$ 7,75
..
$ 101:J ,04
$ 26,321.21
.~~'p.e.~5.~ ~.,= -~~~r:t ..
Postage
Prin~ing Services
.1~v~I .-~!!"f!~~ __
Travel- A,:com.o~at!.C?ns / Hotel
Tra!ning and Conference Fee· Extern
Other.M.~s.ce I~_ " .~o,:sC.h~r~e.s.
Operating ~~ppl!e~
Food and Groceries
Books and Subscripti0r:~_ . .._ ._ _ .
Grand Total
Purchase .rd Review
Db", .ct 6
2004 2005 2006 2007
P-Card% of
..
'P'Card""of P-Card% of P-Card%of
P-Card Spend AccountTotal Total P-(ard Snend . Ace'ount Total .rctet P-Card Spend Account Total Total i" Card Soend Account Toral .Total
s $ 192.95 0%
$,
$ n/a.. s 78,40 s 124,06 63% $ $ nla
S $ 164,70 0" 1. $'.; ..
,
s
80:" " " '00-=
· 0%.
"
$
~
s n/. S
..•.,...
~{" " J Iil- :--Il%
S S n/. s
.......
$ " 168.40 : 6% $ s 178.60 0% $ s n/a
S $ n/. S. S· 1,906.98 0" ..1.
s s 1,230,88 0% s $ n/.
S $ 548.00 0% $ " s '1,845.00 · 0lI' $ $ 4,798,80 0% $ $ 5,003,12 0%
$ $ 1,017,88 0% $':' . s 6,208.47 0" -," .
$ 1,534,44 $ 6,912.06 2 2 " 10 s 2,530:18 s 2,530,18 100%
$ s 84.89 0" " $ S 375.38 '.0% .
$ $ 1,039,16 0% s. 834.63 s 926.79 90" /0
S $ n/· $ S - · nja ':." $ s n/. S
.:
S n/.
$ s 110,00 0" 10 s
.. '$ 157:00 ',0" ..1.
s s n/.
s ..:
39,00 s 109,00 3 6 " 10
$ $ 2,118,42
0" ..1.
s $ .10,741.23 0%" $ 1,612,84 $ 14,283,56 11% s 3,403,81 $ 8,619,09 39%
'. '
.. .
2008
P-Card% of
P-Card Spend Account Total Total
89,00 89,00 100%
nla
189,00 0" 10
9<15,05 0" 10
25.00 1,286,00 2%
466,03 1,193.59 39%
1,973,12 2,766,05 71%
nla
140.00 140,00 100'1.
2,693,15 6,608,69 41%
.:,;"
. ~..: .
':'-
2009 2011 2010
99" /0
P-~aryt:(c;n'
Account Total , : ;Tol:3l,:::
P-Card% of
Total . Account Total
p-Card %aI
Total
0" /0
P-Card Spend Account Total
's". .'.::. n/a '.' $ 201.11 s 203.72
150,00 $ 102,00 $ s 150,00 100% 102,00 1000/0
s. " " <254.20'. ·:>'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. $ s 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 3,440.48 23% 4,939,46 15%
$ 177.08 $ $' 498,73 s 2,120,86 B% 1;449.91 34%
s -... .': : ~/a: ' ",::
s s $ s. nla nla
s: .:,-(]'..I .::.:.:' $ 145.42 $
$ 77.95 164,95 88% 367,32 37%'
.6% $ 2,4QS.82 s $ $'. 2,367,92 1,233.33 21,5ZS:U. 9,056.81 27% 12,781.42 19%
2012 2014 2013
246,00
P-C3rd%of '::~:'.< ";:;':'.:.,:..:.... ,'.,:: '-.:, ..: P-.Car~?'·Of
Total P-Card S~end ·Accouhd::~~I'.~.':<" :< Total"'" Account Total
P-Card %of
Total Account Total P-Card Spend P-Card Spend
28,30 s 28,30 1.19 0" ..1.
109.56 $ n/. 109,56
279,60 $ 279,60
(561,18) $ 2,014,64 634.21
3 9" 10 ::$,· ... ·,>.i;446·oo , $: -." 1,824,90." 79%'-': 490,00 s 1,540.00 s 3,905,00 490,00 1oa%
199,65 S 2,862.61 S 2,932.81 4,113.82 5%
118.01 s 748.50 $ 169.97 1,018,29 6 9" ..1.
7,75 s nla
58% " $" -" ; 368:62 '$" 368.62 100" ;';';.:::: 50,00 $ 331,30 15% 135,00 234,00
56% $" 6,064:36' $ 19,574,00···. 31% .<:" . 865,41 $ 7,366,92 5,142,39 9,141.n 12%
Fig. 2-P-Card Expenditures as Percentage of Annual Account Total
-11 I P age
DeKalb (County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review Distrk t
District~etri" " andBrjkdown ofP-Card Spend for 2004through 2014-ByIndividual
District f .l
Total P-Card
%ol
I . Total P-Card
I o/~ of:
% '1
Transactions
District
,Spend2004thru
District
Transactions
Breakd0r" by District Personnel. -,
' ..
.•..: •2014" . wI ReceiPtJ ,
. I
2004thru 2014
,"." .
K. Gannqn -Commissioner I 40 16% s
," 9,077;,74 34% ...93%;
I
B.Arrington
I
71 29%
$.
7,765:24 29% 100%.
R Morgan
1
8 3% $ 686:40 3%
38%.
C. Wagnpn
I
'. 73. . . 30% ;'$ . .3,782:04 14%
99%
I
M, Walldorff 51 22% '$ 5,015;79 20% 100%
Totals
:'.
.243·
'.
s 26;327.21
'. 97%
:-"
,KGannon
..
':'Totar
:
" 10M
.z:
,...•
. Spend
Travel-,,\irfare
I
$ 279.60 3%
Training~d ConferenceFee-External $ 4,792.00 53%
OtherMiscellaneousCharges1 $ 3,519.45 39%
Operatin&Supplies
I
$ 478,94 5%
Foodand10 roeeries $ 7.75 0%
Total: '•..
y'
.........
.$':':"" 9'07774'
.'.- ....
-
GenerJ Observations
Commissioner Gannon's P-Card activity represented 34% of the overall District expenditures w iil
accounting for 16% of the transactions, The concentration of her spend was in Training and Conferer ce
and Other Miscellaneous Charges. Noting the lack of expenses attributable to Travel-Airfare and Tra Irel-
Accommodations in light of the significant conference fees, we reviewed a sample of non P-Card initi te
expenses for the District's travel accounts. Indoing so, we identified a substantial portion ofthe Distri d's
travel costs.
I
Extended Review Details
6
e
s
d
During the scope penod of Apnl2004 through Apn12014, approximately $43,000 in total was posted to
the categories of Travel-Airfare, Travel-Accommodations/Hotel and Training and Conference F~es-
External. Per Fig. I, approximately $5,800 of this total was charged to the District's P-Cards during this
period. Greater than 95% of the $43,000 total was attributable to Commissioner Gannon.
We reviewed a sample of these expenditures to note documentation support and proof of County business
related purpose. We note that all additional expenditures reviewed were identified as County business
related and adequately supported with documentation,
12 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
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 office111 ither Miscellaneous Charges and Operatmg Supplies. J
EXlendid ReviewDelair
A card older from200~through 2008, we noted atotal of 17Office 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 ~$ :.686040
"
General Observations
Former employee R. Morgan's P-Card activity represented 3% of the overall District expenditures ile
also accounting for 3% of the transactions.
Extended Review Details
A card holder from 2008 through 2009, we noted 5 of 8 total transactions totaling $325.86 were not
included on atransaction log; 3 were without accompanying receipts and improperly categorized. All
transactions wereobserved to bebusiness 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 $ 3,782.04
13IPage
I I
DeKalb aountv Board of I ommissioners Purchase Card Review Distric 6
General Observations
Former J mployee c. Wagnon's P-Card activity represented 15%of the overall District expenditures while
also accJ unting for 30% of the transactions, The concentration of her P-Card expenditures was in supp10rt
of the office inOther Misrellaneous Charges and Operating Supplies.
Extende1d Review Details
A card hi Ider from2009 hrough 2012, wenoted 2of her 78transactions lacked accompanying receipt.
All transactions were observed to be County business related.
I
M.Wa I I d10fff
I :
. ,Total
,%of
·.Spe~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'
.....
_ ...
General Observations
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 0her
Miscellaneous Charges and Operating Supplies.
Extended Review Details
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 beproperly supported with receipts and identified as for County business.
14 I P age
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 amicrowave.
.-
••
DeKalbl Atlanta Senior Center - $250
towards amicrowave.
0 North DeKalb Senior Center
- $250
towards astereo system.
s Scottsdale Senior Center -$250 toward
·a
printer.
15 I P age
I
DeKalb runty Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review
Non P-Card Expense Review
During lle scope period of 2004 - 2014, we reviewed invoices from larger volume District 6 vendor
activity to ascertain the nature of expenses or services provided. All paid vendor invoices reviewed were
identifier with County business related expenses or services. The vendors provided a variety of services
including the following; graphic design, public relations consulting,' travel services for County staff,
other cO!lsulting services, printing, catering for government meetings, technology equipment suppliers,
office snpplies, and other services. No unusual activity was noted for the vendor invoice activity
. I
reviewed.
I
For the purpose of this report, a vendor is classified as a person or business receiving payment from
DeKalb County through the Accounts Payable process. Employees (i.e Commissioner Kathy Gannon)
submitting reimbursement requests through the County's Oracle IExpense System for expenses incurred
while conducting County business are shown as vendors.
District 6
Dist~Ct.6f~ToPVend~rs ·bYDo·na~;(ipril:ZOO4LApr;I;~i4;,.§·
I~Cri~!~;s- .
. :$:Total'·.:~" : : ·, " ./< ; ; i .. " '._ .. -," .,'-
., '\..;." .
.•.. ;.;.•
;;::lnfoi~.e·§·:··::··.:l
;;:;:;.~::>·,;,j'fu~j~~-.P~t~Ranlic
" ;':." .::
KATHRYNMGANNON" 250 $ 41,911.60February2005thruApril2014
HFATHERFLURY' 87 $ 30,760.00February2005thruApril2014
BANKOF4MERICANA 251 $ 26,155.87February2005thruMay2014
NETPROG~SIONINC 6 $ 17,010.00February2005thruFebruary2008
THECOLL~BORA TIVEFffi.MLLC J $ 10,000.00November 2008
WILLIAM~AVIATIONCONSULTANTS INC 1 s
9,766.1 I August2004
SCOTTBEt)lNETT
2 $ 9,332.21J uly2013thruAugust2013
KIMBERL~LWHlTE* 22 $ 8,637.00J anuary20J 3thruNovember2013
DATAPRqDUCTIONS I s 7,144.47December 2004
AUSONE1HERIDGE 7 $ 7,080.00Augusl2009thruJ une 2010
BLEAKLY~DVJ SORYGROUP 2 $ 6,720.00November 2007thru November 2008
BONDURANT MIXSON&ELMORELLP 3 $ 6,504.85February2007thruFebruary2008
DELLMARKETINGLP 5 $ 6,389.08December 2005thruJ une2008
Total 638 s 187,411.19
*Note: We identified persons who worked for the Districts on a temporary or consistent basis without the
classification of full time DeKalb County employee. These individuals were identified as having a 1099
filing 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, professional writing and public relations consulting, website design and maintenance, and
community organization and strategy,
**Note: We identified full time employees who Incurred County busmess related expenses which J ere
submitted through the County's Oracle IExpense System for reimbursement. District personnel can
submit items for reimbursement 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
submitted with supporting documentation, and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Department u ing
similar stringent guidelines to ensure they are valid prior to approval and reimbursement.
Comments for Each Vendor
Bank of America NA
• Amount is for total payments to Bank of America for Purchase Card expenditures during the
scope period.
16 I P age
I
DeKalb(CountyBoard of Commissioners PurchaseCard Review District 6
Net prJression Inc.
I
I I frofessional services were provided by Net Progression, Inc. dba f2 Technology from February
r005 - May 2009. We reviewed invoices thatdescribed the service provided as: " Delegate
yervice License; Access to Delegate software for email and website management. " The vendor
rVOice activity reflected arange from$1,334 -$4,000 for the4-year period.
The Collaborative Firm
I
e peKalb County Planning Services were provided by TheCollaborative Firm in November 2008.
Fe reviewed the invoice that described the service provided as: " Services provided by the firm
from December 2 008 through February 2 009 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
fromrecords; no invoice was available for review.
I
Scott Brnett
o Legal services were provided to the Commissioners' Office by Scott Bennett, Attorney at Law
fromJ une2013 -J uly 2013. Wereviewed 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
fromrecordf; no invoice was available for review. I
Allison Etheridge
Bleakly Advisory Group
I I Professional services were provided by Allison Etheridge. Reviewed J une 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 remI ved
fromrecords; 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
fromrecords; no invoice was available for review.
Dell Marketing LP
• Computer equipment was procured fromDell Marketing fromDecember 2005 -J une2008. otal
vendor invoice payment activity was $6,389. The vendor invoice activity ranged from $269 -
$4,988.
17IPage