dekalb county p-card audit: commissioner lee may

8/10/2019 DeKalb County P-Card Audit: Commissioner Lee May

1/19

DeKaU) (:ounty

Board

of

Commissioners Purchase Card Audit

CommissionerDistrict 5:

-Unhappy Taxpayer

&

Voter.com


2/19

DEKALB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COMMISSIONER DISTRICT NO. 5

REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

FOR THE PERIODS APRIL 2004 TO APRIL 2014


3/19

DeKalb County Board o f Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 5

O.H. PLUNKETT CO. P.c.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I

ACCOUNTANTS

&

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

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

EMAIL [email protected] WEB WWW.OHPCPA.COM

DeKalb County Georgia Board of Commissioners

Commissioner District No.5

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.

I

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

furth9r investigation. Such anomalies could be an indication of an error, either intentional or

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

effici ncies.

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

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

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

of th~e; procedures is so.lely the re~ponsibility o~the specified party to this r~port..Consequently,

we make no representation regardmg the sufficiency of the procedures as listed IIIthe Table of

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

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

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

com, to our attention that would have been reported to you.

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

shou~dnot be used by anyone other than those specified parties.

Atlanta, Georgia

October 3, 2014

2

age


4/19

,.' DeKalbCounty Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 5

REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 5

DEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2004 to APRIL 2014

Table of Contents

PAGE NO. I

k Executive Summary , , .. , , .4-5

B. Agreed-Upon Procedures Defined 6

C. General Information 6

D. DeKalb County Policies 6-7

e Purchase Card Policy

It Travel Policy

e Mobile Policy

Retention Policy

E. Summary of Procedures Performed 7-8

It Purchase Card Expense Review

Ql

Non Purchase Card Expense Review

F. Summary of Findings Purchase Card Transactions 9-11

;) General

I)

Specific

H. Purchase Card Review - Individuals : 12-14

1. Summary of Key Transactions Exceptions 15

G. Non Purchase Card Transactions 16-18

41 General

31Page


5/19

DeKalbCounty Board of Commissioners Purchase- Card Review District 5

Executive Summary - District 5

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.' 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) Jack 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

Interna~ 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

I

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

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

made

d

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

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

documentation.

Our review of District 5 covers the periods commencing with Interim CEO Lee May's July 2006 special

election to fill the seat vacated by (then Commissioner) Congressman Hank Johnson. District 5 P-Card

purchases commenced in 2006 and totaled approximately $57,283 during the scope period of this review.

I

Four

r )

persons within the district were granted purchasing cards during the scope period. Of the 4

cardho ders, we received no supporting documentation for 1 former employee whose transactions totaled

$3,598 Additionally, no documentation was received for an active employee whose transactions totaled

$5,394 We reviewed all related transactions and determined that based on the individual transaction

descriptions, the ex penditure s appeared to be Coun ty business rel ated .

Individual card expenditures ranged from $3,598 for former employee L. Davis to $43,842 for

CommissionerlInterim CEO May. The concentration of purchase card incurred expenses appeared

applicable to county related business travel and Other Miscellaneous Charges. Other Miscellaneous

Charges observed, included purchases for operating supplies and approximately $12,200 in travel-related

1www.napcp.org

41Page

I .


6/19

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District- 5 _

expenses, which had not been classified in the appropriate categories. Purchase card usage in District 5

increased by four-fold in 2010 ($11,257) in comparison to the annual average spend from 2006 through

2009 ($2,577), prior to experiencing a full year high total of $11,439 in 2012.

Review of District 5 P-Card expenditures revealed deficiencies in the availability of transactional support

for both employees and the Commissioner. District 5 as a whole, presented less than 50% of supporting

receipts for it transactions. A total of 509 transactions with the aggregate amount of $43,861.27 did not

have the required supporting documentation. We in turn reviewed corroborative information for travel

and conference related expenses to obtain reasonable assurance in support of County related business

expenditures. Corroborative evidence was not as readily available for less costly expenses including

Operating Supplies and some business meals although such expenses appeared to have been County

related. OUf assessment of District 5 deficiency in transactional documentation and records maintenance

provided clear examples ofthe need to emphasize stricter oversight ofP-Card 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 be implemented for all authorized users. A periodic reassessment ofthese

I

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

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

SIPage


7/19

lYeRalb

L u n t v

Board of ComrnissiorrersPurchase Card Review District 5 .-.

Agreed Upon Procedures Defined

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

audit is a snapshot of the financial picture of an organization at a point in time. In an audit, 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 on whether the financial statements

are presented fairly in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

This engagement, an agreed-upon procedures engagement, is defined as one in which we perform 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 in a financial statement audit.

General Information

On April 22, 2014, the BOC passed a resolution 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 the expenditures for the past ten years (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.

Therevliew 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 evised schedules were filed with the Division of Archives and History, Office of Secretary of

State aslofJuly 30, 2010.

Pllrchte CardPolicy

The 20p4 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

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

purcha~e of small dollar, miscellaneous expense materials and services. These policies and procedures

apply t~ the use of the Bank of America Visa Purchasing CardlP-Card.

DeKalb 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 status on procured services and purchases.

61Page

I


8/19

DeKa'l'bCounty Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 5

The 2004 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 2.004 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.

M o bile P ol ic y

The DeKalb County Wireless Policy, March 20.09 sets out the guidelines for employees who require a

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

wireless card with monthly service paid by the department. Wireless devices and plans are to 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 July 3D 2 .010 . The policy and subsequent revised schedules stipulate the

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

Journal Entries; Journals and Registers; Travel - Registration Fee Payments; and Travel Authorization

and Reimbursement Records. All stated documents have a retention classification of Temporary - Short

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

documentation has a 4-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 2.0.09. As a result, the transaction logs and receipts prior to

2.0.09 were limited during our review.

Procedures

p-cardlExpense Review .

The p-dard review consisted of Board of Commissioners for Districts 1 through 7 (past and current), their

staff, alid the Board of Commissioner's Central Office personnel who maintained a P-Card for any period

betweelr April 20.04 and April 2.014. For each individual identified, a l:istory of all P-Card transactions

was o~tained 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 Administrator maintained the transaction log on a monthly basis.

2) The cardholder attached 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 transactions and monthly total transactions did not exceed guidelines established by P-

Card policy.

5) Transactions were approved in accordance with established policy.

71Page

/ 1

r


9/19

DeKalb C o u n t y Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 5~

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,

P-Card

Expenditures as Percentage of Annual Account Total.

This review was targeted on the following

accounts:

e

Other Professional Services

6 Other Miscellaneous Charges

e Travel-Airfare

e

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

'I


10/19

DeKalb County Board

of

Commissioners Purchase Card Review Distr ict 5

Review Results for District 5

Disl(Lc~

Espense Acc~unt

Other Professional Services

Postage

Printing Services

Travel- Airfare

Travel- Car Rental

Travel Accomodationa/Hotel

Trav el- Per Diem

Tra~el - ~s~.I~~ne~us

Training an.~C~.~f.er~nce Fee - External

Bo oks i3 :nd

Su.b~cripti~~s

other ~i.~~~II~ne?us.~har~~~

Operating Supplies

2004

2005

P-Card

-Card

.:P-Card ..'

2006

v .:

2008 2009

2010

$ .' 8,825.35 $

s

$ 4,940.48

2007

2011

2012 2013

2014

$ 54.96

P-C.rd 10tai

$ 182.62

$

354.76

$

354.00

$ 6,313.32

$ 356.45.

$ 8,984.83

; )~i~~,

$ 5,493.98

$

486.31

$

'3i. 6G ~ 'iO

$ .. ,i;211. 32

Grand Total

$ 5],282.78

P-Card

s '.' ,. $

P-Card '''-Card .' ..:

$- s

P-Card

$

P-Card ,P-Card

75.00

$

107.62

$

$ 546.00

.s ' ::-.-

$

$ . - $

s

2.54

96.76 $ 184.00

s

306.00

$

54.00 '$ J

S

$ - $

S - $

$ .. -:':

S

1,925.18

s

i,002.60

$

(220.40)

$

2,059.94

$

.$ ...~. -

$

$ 229.59

$ $

33.80'$ 93.06

$' $

$ .. $ 3,095.83

$

1,417.34 s 1,704.94

S 1,239.32

$--- $ $ $

$ .. ...

$

208.29

s S2.18

$

32.20 $'. 80.35

$ 30.05

$ 225.00

s' . -, $

678.52

.$91.70

$

255.83 .$ ,:. 239:00

365.00

$ ...1.130.00

$ 207.87

$ 600.00

$

$ 309.01

Fig. 1- Total Pi-Card Spend for District 5(April 2004 -April 2014)

Key Observations

3,824.58 s

960 :96

$

.S' ;..-'.520.00. s

.....

/. :..'.

4,754.74

$ . . 3.830.55 $

s

i61.31

8,343.94 $.. 3,605.67,

s

1,728.27

,494.09 $2,126.40' $

10.50 $ .. _ ':'~ $

2,575.09 $ .:i,li6.40. $

$ ., ,iaB.38 $

11,257.15

$ '. 183:43

11,439.47 s . 10,513.30

As shown in Figure 1 above, P-Card usage did not begin within District 5 until 2006. The concentration of P-Card expenditure occurs

primarily in travel-related categories and Other Miscellaneous Charges. The Other Miscellaneous Charges category of $31,669.20 was

found to contain operating supplies, business meals and travel-related expenditures in the amount of $12,221.59. As such, the largest

District 5 expense categories for P-card purchases are travel, training and conferences.

During our review we noted 509 transactions totaling approximately $57,282.78 for the scope period of April 2004 through April 2014.

Based on the documentation provided, only 39% of all transactions were supported by transaction logs or receipts. The remaining 61% of

transactions had no receipts or other supporting documentation in accordance with the County's P-Card policy. Although many of the

transactions appear to be County related, without accompanying receipts or other collaborative evidence, reasonable assurance was

limited.

Per P-Card policy, transaction logs are to be submitted monthly, include a listing of all transactions, and be signed by the appropriate

personnel as evidence of its review and approvaL Our review and assessment found approximately 95% of all transactions were not

included on the transaction logs as directed by P-Card policy,

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

91Page


11/19

Dekatb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review Distr ict ~

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

the stead of a Department Director.

Due to the limited documentation in support of significant P-Card spends for goods and services, we could not adequately assess the sales

tax exemption as stipulated by P-Card Policy.

P ag e

-------~

~


12/19

Det'dlb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District __

District 5

E~penseA~count

Other Professiona-l-Services-

Post~g~

~~inting Se.:,:,ices

Travel. Airfa re

Travel> Car Rental

Travel Ac~~m~~ation5/Hot~

'travel- Per Diem

Travel. Miscellaneous

Tr~jning

and

C.o ,f~r~n~~ Fee ~Ex ternal

~oo~ a~d ~l:I~s~ript.io.ns

Other Miscellaneous Charges

I?P .'= ~~~~

':lP.P. ..~~ ..__ ...

Grand Total

District 5

Expe ns e A~~~ un t

Other Professi.onal Ser:-i::es.

~o~tage

P~i~ting ?e.tv.i~.e~

Travel- Airfare

... . _ ....

Travel- Car Rental

.. _

..

_ _

. .

_ .

Travel Accorncdations/Hctel

T rave l- Per Diem

Tre vef . Miscellaneous

Iraining aod C9~f~~~ ~:ee - E~t~rnal

Books 20d. ~u~s~ripti~.~s

Oth~.r

~~sc~I.I~ ~~9~~ha.~~e~

2E.~~~~~gupp lie:;s' --- __ ,- __

Grand

Total

District 5

Ex pe_n~e~C :~ _?~ 't

Other P~


13/19

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 5

District Metrics and Breakdown ofP-Card Spend for 2004 through 2014 - By Individual

:$ ..

DistrictS

Breakdown by District Personnel'

. TotlllP-Card

Transactions

2004 thru2014

.%

of TotaIP~Gard. % o r ..% .

. . Spend'2004thru D' Transactions

District ...2014 ... ' istrict w/Receipts

77%

. M ay - Commissioner

431

82%

3;598:01' 6%

0%.:

.Davis 19

3% $

4;449)0 8%

25%

6

3%

. Richardson

$ .: .

,5;393:82 9%

.Young

6]

12%

Totals

4,403.98

$ 5,76732

13%

LMay

:',

.'. Tobit

.%of

Spend

Travel - Airfare

Other Miscellaneous Charges 23,006.54

52%

Operating Sup plies

341.77

1%

$ 182.62

0%

ther Professional Services

$

99.30

0%

ostage

$

300.00

1%

rinting Services

$

356.45

1%

ravel- Car Rental

$ 7,745.51

18%

ravel - Accomodations / Hotel

$ 373.02

1%

ravel - Per Diem

Travel- Miscellaneous

1,265.05

3%

10%

raining and Conference Fee -External

1

Total

I

General Observations

commi~sioner May's P-Card actrvity represented 77% of the overall District expenditures while

accounting for 82% of the recorded transactions. The highest concentration of his spend, $23,006.54 was

in Othef Miscellaneous Charges. The five categories of travel aggregated $15,507.3 5 and represented the

next higilest concentration of expense.

Extended Review Details

Noting he amount of Other Miscellaneous Charges, we reviewed the recorded transactions and observed

an addi~'anal $12,222 of travel related expenditures coded incorrectly. This observation, if restated, would

correctly reflect travel and travel related expenses to be $27,729.

We rev ewed these expenditures to assess compliance with those policies and procedures identified in

general information section of this report and more particular, support and proof of County related

business. Although supporting documentation was not provided for a significant portion of the other

expend categories, those expenditures identified as travel and travel related had other evidence to support

and corroborate the expense as County related business activity.

12 I P age


14/19

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District S

Policy and Procedures Compliance

Monthly P-Card Transaction logs and supporting receipts were not available for the majority of months

reviewed; therefore a substantial number of other expenditures, not supported by appropriate

documentation could not be identified as County related business expenses.

L Davis

. Total '

%of

Spend


$

3,598.01

100%

Tota l $

.. 3 ,598;01'


Former employee L. Davis's P-Card activity represented 6% of the overall District expenditures while

also accounting for 3% of the transactions. The concentration of her P-Card expenditures was in office

supplies and support, thus recorded as Other Miscellaneous Charges. Our review of L. Davis's

transactions showed they appeared to be County business related.


A card holder from 2004 through 2006, we noted a total of 19 Office Supplies transactions which were

classified as Other Miscellaneous Charges.

Policy Jnd Procedures Compliance

Monthl P-Card Transaction logs and supporting receipts were missing from substantially all of the

months reviewed; therefore unsupported transactions could not be asserted as County related business

e x p e n ,

. . . . . I . . .

. .

. .

'%of

.. .

... To'tat

' o

E, Richardson

,$ pend :

Travel - rirfare $ 546.00 12%

Travel - fccomodations / Hotel $ 1,239.32

28%

Travel - fer Diem

s

30.05

1%

Travel - f v 1 iscellaneous

s

177.89

4%

Training

and Conference Fee -External

s

600.00

13%

OtherM iscellaneous Charges

$

1,521.04 35%

Books ~d Subscriptions $ 225.00

5%

Op era tir ig Supplies

$

110.00

2%

I

Total

s.

.

4,449.30


Employee E. Richardson's P-Card activity represented 8% of the overall District expenditures while also

accounting for 3% of the transactions.

13/Page

I

I I

I


15/19

- - - . DeKci lb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 5


A card holder from 2008 through present, we noted only 7 of 12 transactions totaling $1,877.08 had

supporting documentation along with a P-Card transaction log report. Only those supported transactions

were observed to be County business related.

Policy and Procedures Compliance

Monthly P-Card Transaction logs and

supporting

receipts were missing from substantially all of the

months reviewed; therefore, unsupported transactions could not be asserted as County related business

expenses.

LYoung Tot; l. %.pf

,.

'Spend

Postage

$ 20050

4%

Travel - M isceJlaneous

$

29.98

1%


$

3,543.61

65%

Operating Supp lies

$

759.46 14%

Postage - Central Services

$

54.96

1%

Books and Subscriptions

$

261.31

5%

Printing Services

$

54.00

1%

Training and Conference Fee -External

$ 490.00

9%

. . .

Total .

.

. s . . . . . . .

.5;393;82


EmplOy~e L. Young's P-Card activity represented 9% of the overall District expenditures while also

accountp1g for 12% of the transactions. The greatest concentration of P-Card expenditures occurred in

Otber Miscellaneous Charges.

Extend d Review Details

A card holder from 2006 through present, we noted all of her 61 transactions lacked accompanying P-

Card logs or receipts.

Polic Jnd Procedures Com Hance

Monthl P-Card Transaction logs and supporting receipts were missing from substantially all of the

months Ireviewed; therefore, unsupported transactions could not be asserted as County related business

expenss.

14 I P

age


16/19

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card ReviewDistrict 5

District 5 Summary of Key Transaction Exceptions

Date

Vendor Amount ...

Comments.

l.

7-31-2006

DECUIR Catering

$1,000.00

Charged to L. Davis's card. This former

employee's expenditures as listed in the

accounting system were charged to

DECUIR Catering Commissioner District 5. We were unable to

8-11-2006

$1,000.00

review P-Card logs, receipts or Bank Card

Statements to collaborate these charges.

Further review of internal records revealed

termination of this P-Card account on

November 25,2006. Based on those

procedures indicated above, we were unable

to draw any conclusion on these transactions

I

as County business related.

2.

4- r-

2OOB

Office Depot $580.96

Charged to L. Young's card. This expense

was not included on a transaction log and no

receipt was provided.

3. 4-10-2012

Hotel George

$1,051.12

Charged to L. May's card. This expenditure

Washington, DC was for attendance at a conferences related

to County business. The reason for travel

was eventually ascertained through other

collaborative correspondence. However,

amounts were not posted to P-Card log, nor

were receipts attached in accordance with P-

Card policies and procedures.

4.

5-8-2012

American Airlines

$1,124.70

Charged to L. May's card. This expenditure

DallaslFt. Worth,

was for attendance at a conferences related

TX to County business. The reason for travel

was eventually ascertained through other

collaborative correspondence. However,

amounts were not posted to P-Card log, nor

were receipts attached in accordance with P-

Card policies and procedures.

5. 9

12-2013

Coco Cabana $1,069.63

Charged to L. Young's card. This expense

Tucker, Georgia was not included on a transaction log and no

receipt was provided. The explanation

provided for this expense was that this

charge was for a September 11th

,

Commemorative dinner.

5 P age


17/19

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase CardReview District 5

Non Pi-Card Expense Review

During the scope period of 2004 - 2014, we reviewed invoices from larger volume District 5 vendor

activity to ascertain the nature of expenses or services provided. All paid vendor invoices reviewed were

identified 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 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. current Commissioner Lee May

and former Commissioner Henry Johnson) submitting reimbursement requests through the County's

Oracle Expense System for expenses incurred while conducting County business are shown as vendors.

, , ,


18/19

DeKalb CountvBoard of Commissioners PurchaseCard ReviewDistrict 5 .

Comments for Each Vendor

Bank of America NA

e Total payments to Bank of America for Purchase Card expenditures during the scope period.

Profile Marketing

&

Public Relations LLC

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

records; no invoice was available for review.

Eric

C.

Hubbard



ASI System Integration Inc.

@

Computers and computer related equipment.

Grand Hyatt Washington

4l

Tra1el expenses while attending

&

conducting County related business.

Henry

C .

Johnson

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


Karen Tanks-Flowers

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


Dell Marketing LP

e

Purchase of computers and computer related equipment.

NACO fonference Registration Center

corty related conference expenditures.

Erik Btfrton

e



The Collaborative Firm LLC

e

Payment in December 2008 for Phase II ofIV for County planning services rendered.

Best Print Inc.

e Some documentation available - record retention period may have impacted other documentation.

DeKalb Office Environments Inc.

e



17IPage


19/19

beKalb (Coun ty Bo a rd o f Commiss ioner s Pu rchase Card Rev iew-District 5

I

D ecatur/ r vel Agency

@

County related expenditures for County business related travel.

8 P

age

dekalb county p-card audit: commissioner lee may

Documents