COUNTY INVENTORY SHOWS NO CONTROLS, NUMEROUS LOSSES

"Get a life ! Other departments are worse report on those..." on AUDIT: D.A.'S OFFICE RUNS IMPREST LIKE A SLUSH FUND

By Juan Montoya
Fair enough.
Below are the audit reports for various Cameron County Dept. The comment above reminds us of our days in the military when we were told by a DI that if you are going to be inspected and your spit-shined boots are not as shiny as others, to look for someone whose boots are worse than yours and stand next to them.

Here goes:

David Garcia County Administration Inventory Summary:

o Five (5) inventory items lacked a County Tag ID.
o Sixteen (16) inventory items were not located. Acquisition dates ranges from
September 2002 to January 2010. Total cost for these items is $5,142.90
 Computer $3,683.84
 Furniture $1,016.26
 Other Equipment $442.80

o According to management, out of the sixteen (16) items not located three; (3) items were picked up by computer center and two (2) by building maintenance. No transfer forms were provided for these items.

o Twenty-eight (28) items were found that were not listed on the inventory list for this department. Some items were transfers from other departments. No transfer forms were provided.
o Twenty-five (25) items listed under this department were transferred to other departments. No transfer forms were provided.

As per this review, the inventory list from the County Administrator’s office is not up to date. The Fixed Assets department will update the department’s inventory list based on the results from this inventory of assets.

Management Response: No response was submitted by department.

Constable Pct. 3 Adrian Gonzalez

Observation: The inventory list was not up to date. Verified equipment does not agree with inventory list.

1. Fifteen (15) items were not located. Acquisition dates ranges from September 1992 to September 2013. No records for the status of these fourteen (14) items were available.

1. Total cost for these items is $11,989.45. The following is the classification and total purchase price of the missing items:
2. Furniture $ 879.30
3. Portable Defibrillator $ 2,015.00
4. Radios $ 6,016.00
5. Police Radars/Antenna $ 3,079.15
6. One of the items not located was a wrecked vehicle. Purchase price of vehicle is $21,343.12 According to the Constable’s office. The vehicle was taken by insurance company.
2. Twenty (20) items found lacked a County Tag ID.
3. Sixty two (62) items found were not reflected in inventory list. There are no records of transfer forms received from the acquisition of these items.

Observation: Auditors were unable to locate one (1) firearm.
1. A Remington 870 Police shotgun was not found. Constables office has filed a report for missing firearm. Report states that it was assigned to a deputy, but he had returned the gun to supervisor.
3. Sixty two (62) items found were not reflected in inventory list. There are no records
As per this review, the inventory list from Constable Pct. 3 is not up to date. The Fixed

Inventory Summary

Assets department will update the department’s inventory list based on the results from this inventory of assets.

Eddie Treviño's County Judge Office

Observation: Inventory list is not up to date.

1. Eight (8) items lacked a County Tag ID. All the items are new equipment purchases.
2. Two (2) items found were not reflected in inventory list. No transfer forms were provided for these items.

Inventory Summary

As per this review, the inventory list from the County Judge’s department is not up to date. The fixed assets department will update the department’s inventory list based on the results from this inventory of assets.

Cameron County Vehicle Maintenance

1. Auditors verified supply items in the vehicle maintenance warehouse and the body shop area based on the “Parts Inventory on Hand” report from July 14, 2016. The supply list listed 1,134 supply items on hand.

Summary of Inventory

1. Some deficiencies found on inventory controls.
o Department does not have a policy and procedures manual for the administration of inventory supplies.
o Supplies information on inventory system lacks relevant information such as brand, description, etc.
o Inventory list from the system did not reconcile to physical inventory conducted by auditors.
 Their inventory on hand is dependent on supplies used in the work orders completed and supplies received from purchase orders. Work orders are created when a county vehicle is brought in for service. The work order is subject to change, depending on any additional work the vehicle needs.

Work orders are uploaded to the inventory system within one to two weeks. Supplies received thru purchase orders get uploaded in system within one to two days. This delayed process creates a discrepancy between the supplies on hand list and the actual supplies on hand verified.
o Quantities of supplies are not updated on a regular basis.

Findings, Observations: Upon review and verification of supplies inventory list, the following was noted:

1. 644 supply items listed match physical counts from auditors.
 474 items shown as available on hand reconciled to quantities verified by auditors.
 170 items had no stock available on hand.
2. 215 supply items listed as having stock available on hand were not found. Total value of items not found is $27,386.10. Total quantity of missing items is 2,990.

The size of the County Fleet has been increasing for the past 3 years. Appendix A illustrates the increase the fleet has experienced in the last 3 fiscal years. Along the same lines, demands on the vehicle service department have increased as well. During fiscal year 2016, the average number of work orders completed per week was 122. Based on the volume of work and funds expended to maintain county fleet, it is recommended for inventory supplies to be closely monitored to ensure county assets are being used appropriately. As per this review, the total value of missing items is $42,187.62.

This review was designed to provide reasonable assurance that the internal control structure is adequate to safeguard the County’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. Presently cameras have been installed in this area to strengthen internal controls. Based on this review, the internal control structure of the fleet maintenance department appears to be weak. We encourage the implementation of the above mentioned recommendations in order to strengthen its controls.