Todd E. Miller, C.p.a. Auditor-controller 200 W 4th Street*

Recommendations 13

• R1
  There is no monitoring system in place to assure that Cal-Card program and procedures are followed. Response: The Auditor-Controller office reviews all charges and related documentation for Cal-Card charges when submitted for payment. Unusual or inappropriate charges are questioned and resolved.
• R2
  The reports and information available to the administrator and Auditor-Controller are inadequate to support pro-active monitoring of the program's operations. There is no opportunity for reconciliation between individual account statements and monthly summary reports. Response: The information to pro-actively monitor the program's operation does exist and was provided to the Cal-Card Administrator. The Auditor-Controller was not involved nor provided information necessary to pro-actively monitor the program. The Cal-Card Adminstrator in the Purchasing Department was charged with that duty. The Auditor-Controller reviewed and paid bills when received from the Departments.
• R3
  Cardholders are trusted to be prudent, honest, and ethical in ther use of the card Response: All employees of the County are trusted to be prudent, honest and ethical in their Cal-Card use and in all other ways. The County has Internal Control procedures in place to monitor and locate behaviors which are less than prudent, honest and ethical.
• R4
  There is inconsistancy in the time frame for submission of monthly statements, five days in the policy and procedures manual and seven days in the cardholder agreement, Response: When writing the procedures manual the County elected a shorter timeframe for departments.
• R5
  The Grand Jury was unable to evaluate the use of the Cal-Card program by the BOS and Chief Clerk of the Board because they failed to provide all requested records. Response: All requested records were made available to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was notified, in writing, that all records were available for inspection. No response was received by the Auditor-Controller.
• R6
  Some cardholders are not aware of their spending limits and available fund balances. Response: The Auditor-Controller can not evaluate this statement since it was not the Cal-Card Administrator and did not issue cards.
• R7
  The card's ease of use promotes lack of planning, resulting in higher costs for "emergency" purchases. Response: The Auditor Controller disagrees with the Finding that "the card's ease of use promotes lack of planning, resulting in higher costs for "emergency" purchases." The Auditor-Controller contends that card use expedites purchases and saves the County money. For example: it is almost impossible to make travel reservations without a Card; County maintenance personnel can pick up small repair items immediately without the need prepare a purchase order, wait for approval, wait for a check to be prepared (a process that could take two weeks); Public Safety personnel can immediately obtain necessary supplies or lodging in emergency situations. The "planning" is done through the budget process at the beginning of each year. Every department must adhere to their budget unless they obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors for a change in their budget. Use of the Cal-Card actually provided LOWER costs to the County. During the two years covered by the Grand Jury investigation the County received approximately $20,000 in Cal-Card rebates.
• R8
  The origin and status of the $30,000 in question has not been determined. Response: The "origin' of the $30,000 paid by the County on the Cal-Card was never in question. The "status" has been determined. The Bank had applied the payments to the wrong Master account. The Bank has now correctly applied the payments.
• R9
  "Previous balance $0.00" provides misinformation to the cardholder when a prior balance has not been paid, and the administrator is not alerted to a possible problem. Response: The Auditor-Controller is working with the Bank to change the wording on departmental statements and to educate departments of proper use of the statements.
• R10
  The County's Cal-Card program is subject to misuse. Response: All County assets are "subject" to misuse. The County has Internal Control procedures in place to minimize risk of misuse and an Internal Audit Division within the Auditor-Contoller's office to review and improve Internal Control procedures. Out of the 88 cards issued and thousands of transactions there are only two known individuals that misused their Cal-Card, both discovered through internal control checks and balances.
• R11
  The cost of meals provided at meetings is not limited. The average cost of most of the meals purchased exceeded the out-of-county lunch reimbursement rate by $10. Response: The out-of-County meal reimbursment policy covers just that - travel meals. Meals supplied at local meetings would not be covered under that policy. NOTE: The IRS travel meal policy also does not cover meeting meals.
• R12
  Examination of the County's budget for the review period indicated that planning, approval, and budgeting for the provision of meals for meeting attendees was not included in the Administration budget. Response: This item is not within the purview of the Auditor-Controller's office.
• R13
  Adequate and convenient meeting accommodations are available in the County Government Center. Response: The Auditor-Controller agrees with this in most, but not all, situations. There are no meal facilities available at the Government Center.