1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12
FINDINGS
Our audit of the BCC and the Clerk disclosed numerous
instances in which the BCC and/or the Clerk had not established the controls necessary to
assure the safeguarding of their resources and compliance with applicable legal
requirements or had not established adequate records systems to demonstrate compliance
with such requirements. Matters coming to our attention relating to noncompliance with
various guidelines and those relating to significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of the internal control for those operations audited are described below.
Because of the nature of certain transactions discussed in this report, our audit report
will be filed with the Office of the State Attorney, First Judicial Circuit, for a
determination of whether any criminal violations of law occurred in connection with these
transactions.
The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk, in their written
responses, indicated disagreement with several of the findings included in this report.
Where appropriate, we have included clarifications to address the Chairman’s and the
Clerk’s responses. Cooperative efforts between the Clerk and the BCC will be required
to address many of the findings in this report and to establish processes and methods that
will assure an efficient and effective county government for the citizens of Walton
County.
The Chairman included, with his written response to the findings, a response from the
Executive Director of the Tourists Development Council to the findings related to the
Tourist Development Council. The Executive Director has indicated that supporting
documentation for TDC expenditures, beyond that submitted to the Clerk, is available and
would be provided to the Clerk upon request. As suggested by the Attorney General, in
Opinion No. 068-12, supporting documentation for expenditures should be provided at the
time that the payment is requested.
Commissioner Responsibilities
During the audit period, individual members of the BCC appear to have exercised the
power to carry on County government without the benefit of action by a majority of the
BCC. (See paragraphs 27 through 31.)
Management Controls
The BCC’s and the Clerk’s stewardship responsibilities carry with them a
responsibility to assure that management controls provide for the effective and efficient
use of resources in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, and other guidelines. Our
evaluations of the BCC’s and the Clerk’s management controls are discussed under
appropriate subheadings below:
Policies and Procedures. The BCC and the Clerk had not established
adequate written policies or procedures for several of their accounting and other
business-related functions. Such policies and procedures are essential to providing both
management and employees with guidelines regarding the proper conduct of County business
and the effective safeguarding of assets and ensuring that County records provide reliable
information necessary for management oversight. (See paragraphs 33 through 37.)
Separation of Duties. The BCC’s and the Clerk’s organizational
structure and assignment of employee responsibilities did not provide for an adequate.
separation of duties in certain areas of operations, thus increasing the possibility that
errors or irregularities could occur and not be detected in a timely manner. (See
paragraphs 38 through 40.)
Journal Entries. The County’s internal control over journal entries
should be enhanced to ensure that all journal entries are properly recorded, contain an
adequate explanation of the entry, and contain evidence of review and approval by
supervisory personnel. (See paragraphs 41 and 42.)
Budgetary Controls – Board of County Commissioners
Chapter 129, Florida Statutes, establishes a budget system for the boards of
county commissioners, including requirements for the preparation, adoption, execution, and
amendment of an annual budget. Pursuant to the August 26, 1997, Joint Stipulation,
the BCC established an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and staffed the OMB with a
county budget officer to carry out the duties set forth in Chapter 129, Florida Statutes.
Prior to that date, the county budget officer duties prescribed in Chapter 129, Florida
Statutes, were performed by the Clerk. As discussed below, our review of the budget
practices of the BCC and the Clerk disclosed several deficiencies and/or violations of
applicable law which could result in over- or under-taxing and inadequate information
being provided to oversight authorities and taxpayers.
Budget Preparation. Contrary to Section 129.01, Florida Statutes, the
BCC, in preparing its 1996-97 and 1997-98 fiscal years budgets, did not properly consider
all beginning fund equities available from prior fiscal years. The amounts of such
balances brought forward have a direct impact on the amount of additional funds to be
raised to finance County operations. (See paragraphs 44 through 47.)
Budget Over-expenditures. Contrary to Sections 129.06 and 129.07, Florida
Statutes, actual expenditures and other financing uses for the BCC exceeded amounts
budgeted for certain special revenue funds for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 fiscal years. (See
paragraphs 48 through 52.).
Budget Amendments. Our review of the actions taken by the County to amend
the 1996-97 and 1997-98 fiscal years budgets disclosed deficiencies in the BCC’s
budget amendment procedures. These deficiencies diminished the effectiveness of the budget
as a means of controlling expenditures within available resources. (See paragraphs 53
through 55.)
Budgetary Controls – Clerk of the Circuit Court
As a " county fee officer," the Clerk of the Circuit Court is required by
Section 218.35, Florida Statutes, to establish an annual budget for the Clerk’s
Office, which shall clearly reflect the revenues available to the Office and the functions
for which money is to be expended.
Budget Requirements. Contrary to Section 218.35(2)(a), Florida Statutes,
the Clerk did not file the Clerk’s budget relating to the State courts system with
the State Courts Administrator for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 fiscal years. (See paragraphs
56 through 59.) Also, the Clerk’s accounting records did not, in some instances,
accurately reflect the Clerk’s budget. (See paragraphs 60 through 62.)
Budget Reporting Requirements. Contrary to Section 218.36, Florida
Statutes, for the 1996-97 fiscal year, the Clerk did not remit excess fees to the BCC in a
timely manner and did not provide the BCC with a detailed report of expenses. Contrary to
Section 218.36(3), Florida Statutes, the BCC did not notify the Governor of the
Clerk’s noncompliance. (See paragraphs 63 through 66.)
Cash in Bank
At September 30, 1997, the Clerk maintained 49 bank accounts (excluding
investment accounts) into which public funds of the Clerk and the BCC were deposited. The
total cash held on deposit in these accounts (excluding accounts maintained by component
units of the BCC) at September 30, 1997, was $7,135,810 and $1,358,775 for the BCC and the
Clerk, respectively..
Bank Reconciliations. Our review of the Clerk’s bank reconciliation
procedures disclosed that bank accounts were not promptly reconciled during and subsequent
to the 1996-97 fiscal year. In the event of a loss of cash, failure to reconcile bank
accounts could result in a failure to detect and recover the loss. (See paragraphs 67
through 70.)
Check Writing. Our audit tests disclosed deficiencies in the
accountability for checks issued by the Clerk to disburse BCC funds. These deficiencies
increase the possibility of unauthorized disbursements. (See paragraphs 71 through 73.)
Stale-Dated Checks. Contrary to Sections 717.117 and 717.119, Florida
Statutes, checks written by the Clerk that had been outstanding for over a year and
constituting unclaimed property as defined by Sections 717.113 and 717.115, Florida
Statutes, had not been reported or remitted to the Florida Department of Banking and
Finance. (See paragraphs 74 through 76.)
Electronic Transfers of Funds. Deficiencies in the Clerk’s
procedures over electronic transfers of moneys limited management’s assurance that
electronic funds transfers were properly authorized, processed, and documented. (See
paragraphs 77 through 79.)
Investments (Interest Earnings)
At September 30, 1997, reported investments of the BCC and the Clerk totaled
approximately $23,910,052 and $23,339, respectively, excluding component units.
Investments of BCC moneys consisted of pooled investments with the Florida State Board of
Administration, the Florida Counties Investment Trust Fund, and deferred compensation
mutual funds. Investments of Clerk moneys consisted of deferred compensation mutual funds.
Investment Plan. The BCC’s and the Clerk’s investment policy
does not address all of the requirements of Section 218.415, Florida Statutes, and,
contrary to the investment plan, the Clerk or designee did not prepare an investment
report. In addition, performance measures were not developed, contrary to Section
218.415(3), Florida Statutes. (See paragraphs 81 through 83.)
Repurchase Agreements. Subsequent to the 1996-97 fiscal year, the Clerk
invested BCC and Clerk moneys in repurchase agreements that were not authorized in the
investment plan. Also, in some instances, the securities collateralizing the repurchase
agreements were not authorized in the investment plan or by law and included derivative
products. Furthermore, procedures had not been implemented to assure that the repurchase
agreements were adequately collateralized. Failure to establish adequate controls over the
investment of moneys could result in significant losses in the event of adverse investment
conditions. (See paragraphs 84 through 86.)
Investment of Surplus Funds. During the period October 1, 1996, through
March 31, 1998, the Clerk maintained significant balances of surplus BCC and Clerk moneys
in low interest money market and checking accounts and reported interest earnings of
approximately $284,000. However, additional interest earnings of approximately $348,000
could have been earned had the excess funds been invested through the Florida State Board
of Administration. (See paragraphs 87 through 91.)
Interest Distributions on Pooled Bank Accounts. The methodologies used by
the Clerk to allocate interest earnings for the BCC and Clerk pooled bank accounts were
not always consistent and did not provide the most equitable interest earnings
distribution. (See paragraphs 92 through 96.)
Receivables The BCC had not established adequate collection procedures
for emergency medical services accounts receivable. (See paragraphs 97 through 101.).
Tangible Personal Property According to the BCC’s subsidiary
property records, the BCC had tangible personal property totaling $12,291,087 as of
September 30, 1997. Chapter 274, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10.400, Rules of the
Auditor General, establish requirements for the supervision, control, and disposition of
tangible personal property. The BCC is responsible for carrying out these functions. Our
examination of the BCC’s records and internal controls for tangible personal property
disclosed several deficiencies as described below:
General Ledger Control Accounts. Contrary to Section 10.450(6), Rules of
the Auditor General, the BCC has not established general ledger control accounts to
account for tangible personal property owned by the BCC. (See paragraphs 104 and 105.)
Tangible Personal Property Records. The BCC’s tangible personal
property records did not include all of the information necessary to properly identify,
and evidence the establishment of accountability for, property items. Additionally,
several property items were not properly tagged or marked as property of the BCC. (See
paragraphs 106 through 108.)
Annual Inventory. A complete inventory of the tangible personal property
owned by the BCC had not been done thereby limiting the BCC’s assurance that such
property is adequately safeguarded. (See paragraphs 109 and 110.)
Dispositions of Tangible Personal Property. Our tests of tangible
personal property deletions disclosed several instances of noncompliance with Chapter 274,
Florida Statutes, and/or Chapter 10.400, Rules of the Auditor General. In addition,
property disposals were not always timely posted to the property records or recorded
accurately to the accounting records. (See paragraphs 111 through 116.)
Heavy Equipment Dispositions. Several heavy equipment items were disposed
of after having been owned for a relatively short period of time. The BCC did not, of
record, document the need for these items to be disposed of, nor did they demonstrate the
economic feasibility of such disposals given the long-term useful lives of these assets.
(See paragraphs 117 through 121.)
Bond Issues Pursuant to Article VII, Section 12 of the Constitution of
the State of Florida, counties with taxing powers may issue bonds, certificates of
indebtedness, or any form of tax anticipation certificates. Section 125.013 and Chapters
130, 131, 132, and 159, Florida Statutes, also grant authority for counties to issue
long-term debt. Our audit included an examination of the $1,500,000 Series 1995 Taxable
Transportation Facility Revenue Obligations issued on November 8, 1995, to help finance
the construction of a truck stop facility, and the $2,525,000 Series 1996 General
Obligation Refunding Bonds issued on January 8, 1997, to advance refund the outstanding
Series 1988 General Obligation Refunding Bonds. Our detailed findings as to these
long-term debt issues are discussed below:
Transportation Facility Revenue Obligations. The County issued $1,500,000
Series 1995 Taxable Transportation Facility Revenue Obligations to help finance the
construction of a truck stop facility owned and operated by D & H Oil Company (D &
H Oil). Although the County is required to apply the proceeds of special fuel tax revenues
received pursuant to Section 206.875, Florida Statutes, to pay debt service on the
obligations, it had only paid $40,577.96 towards the $753,728.30 of principal and interest
due through September 1998. The remaining $713,150.34 of principal and interest due was
paid by D & H Oil, which has filed a petition requesting that the Court order the
County to use special fuel revenues generated by the truck stop to repay the principal and
interest paid by D & H Oil. (See paragraphs 124 through 133.)
Bond Issuance Method. The BCC did not, of record, demonstrate that a
financial or market analysis was done prior to the issuance of the $1,500,000 Series 1995
Taxable Transportation Facility Revenue Obligations (issued on November 8, 1995) and the
$2,525,000 Series 1996. General Obligation Refunding Bonds (issued on January 8, 1997),
and did not, for either of these debt issues, utilize an independent financial advisor.
Use of a financial advisor can help assure that informed and objective decisions are made
by County officials, particularly as to the most appropriate method of issuance. (See
paragraphs 134 through 139.)
Selection of Underwriter and Legal Counsel. In acquiring the services of
an underwriter, bond counsels, and other attorneys in connection with the $1,500,000
Series 1995 obligations and the $2,525,000 Series 1996 bonds, the County obtained such
services without benefit of competitive selection procedures and written agreements.
Documentation supporting issuance costs for these debt issues was generally not available
or not in sufficient detail to allow a determination as to whether such costs were
appropriate. (See paragraphs 140 through 145.)
Restricted Funds The County did not maintain separate accountability for
the use of certain restricted revenues through the use of special revenue funds and did
not otherwise demonstrate that these restricted revenue sources were properly used in
accordance with the applicable provisions of law. (See paragraphs 146 through 151.)
Cash Controls and Administration The majority of BCC revenues are from ad
valorem, local option, and other taxes; Federal and State grants; and State
revenue-sharing. However, the County also receives a substantial amount of revenue from
other sources such as charges for water and sewer fees, occupational license fees,
building permit fees, emergency medical service fees, and various other miscellaneous
fees. The Clerk’s revenue sources include numerous fees and charges assessed pursuant
to Chapters 28 and 34, Florida Statutes, and various other sections of law, and from
appropriations from the BCC. BCC and Clerk management are responsible for establishing
adequate internal controls that provide reasonable assurance that cash collections are
safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition. As discussed below, our
audit disclosed internal control deficiencies regarding collections:
Recording of Collections of the Clerk’s Office. The Clerk’s
procedures for recording fees, service charges, and other collections were such that
manual reports of amounts collected and deposited were prepared despite the availability
of similar automated reports. This resulted in an unnecessary duplication of effort and an
inefficient use of the Clerk’s resources. (See paragraphs 154 and 155.)
BCC Fee Waivers. Our tests of fee assessments disclosed that, in some
instances, building permit fee waivers were granted contrary to Ordinance No. 89-5. (See
paragraphs 156 and 157.)
Deposit of BCC Collections. In several instances, collections from
building permit, occupational license, and ambulance fees were not deposited in a timely
manner. (See paragraphs 158 through 160.)
Employment Practices Our audit disclosed certain irregularities regarding
the employment of the Clerk’s former Director of Management Information
Services/Finance. Also, there was no documented basis for $11,494 of compensatory time
paid to seven Clerk employees prior to June 5, 1998. (See paragraphs 161 through 169.)
Procurement of Goods and Services With respect to BCC funds, the BCC is
responsible, under applicable law and the Joint Stipulation, for procurement
activities, including the selection of vendors, issuance of purchase orders, receipt of
invoices, and matching of invoices to purchase orders. The Clerk is responsible for
pre-audit of the expenditures, the issuance of checks, and the recording of expenditures.
Prior to the effective date of the Joint Stipulation, the Clerk was also
responsible for the issuance of purchase orders, receipt of invoices, and matching of
invoices to purchase orders. With respect to funds of the Clerk’s Office, the Clerk
is responsible for all expenditure-related functions. The nature of our audit required
that we form judgments as to the propriety of County expenditures. Our audit included an
examination of the policies, procedures, and records inherent in the accomplishment of the
functions described in the preceding paragraph, insofar as they pertain to the
expenditures of the BCC and the Clerk. Our audit disclosed a number of expenditures for
which the BCC and/or Clerk had not adequately documented: (1) the propriety of the
expenditures (i.e., that they served a public purpose and were in compliance with
applicable laws, ordinances, and other guidelines); (2) the amounts expended were
reasonably determined in relation to the goods or services acquired; and/or (3) the goods
or services were acquired using good business practices (i.e., a competitive selection
process and/or written agreements). These expenditures totaled $6,117,336 ($5,821,501 for
the BCC and $295,835 for the Clerk), including $888,193 ($868,758 for the BCC and $19,435
for the Clerk) that were unauthorized and/or inadequately supported as to their propriety.
General Disbursements
· Clerk’s Pre-Audit Procedures. The Clerk had not
implemented adequate pre-audit procedures to ensure that BCC and Clerk expenditures serve
an authorized public purpose and are in compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, and
other guidelines. (See paragraphs 177 and 178.) Also, our test of expenditure vouchers
disclosed several deficiencies in the County’s disbursement processing procedures
that could result in the purchase of unauthorized goods or services, duplicate payments,
or budget overexpenditures. (See paragraphs 179 through 181.)
· Contributions to Nongovernmental Organizations. The BCC made
contributions totaling $128,661.97 to nongovernmental organizations during the period
October 1996 through June 1998 for which the BCC had not taken adequate measures to ensure
that the public funds were used for a specified public purpose. (See paragraphs 182
through 186.)
· Contributions to Governmental Entities. In several instances totaling
approximately $84,160, the BCC either incurred expenditures on behalf of, or made
disbursements to, other governmental entities during the period October 1996 through June
1998. The BCC had not, of record, demonstrated why these expenditures were the
responsibility of the County rather than the other governmental entities. (See paragraphs
187 through 191.)
· Inadequately Documented/Unauthorized Expenditures. During the period
October 1996 through June 1998, the BCC incurred $20,350 for expenditures for coffee
service for employees and the general public. The BCC had not, of record, documented what
specific County purpose was furthered through the providing of the coffee services. (See
paragraphs 192 and 193.) Also, three court reporters were overpaid a total of $262.50
during the period October 1996 through June 1998. (See paragraphs 194 and 195.)
· Purchasing Practices The BCC’s purchasing practices are primarily
addressed by the BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures effective January 1,
1998. The Clerk had not adopted written purchasing policies and procedures. Pursuant to
the BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures, the BCC’s Purchasing
Department was responsible for coordinating the solicitation of bids or quotes from
prospective vendors when procuring goods or services.
· Competitive Bids. Contrary to good business practices and/or the
BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures, purchases totaling $3,138,348 for
goods or services were acquired without benefit of competitive quotes or bids. (See
paragraphs 197 through 202.)
· Awarding of Contracts for Professional Services. In acquiring
contracted professional services totaling $1,042,353 during the period October 1996
through June 1998, the BCC and/or Clerk obtained such services without benefit of
competitive selection procedures and/or written agreements. Invoices submitted by some
contractors were not in sufficient detail to allow a determination as to whether fees
charged were appropriate and some fees charged appeared to be inconsistent with those
previously agreed upon. (See paragraphs 204 through 208.).
· Accounting Services. During the period October 1996 through June 1998,
the BCC and the Clerk paid a public accounting firm a total of $85,055 for nonauditing
related services rendered, including $52,000 for the 1996-97 fiscal year. Most of the
nonauditing services being provided by the firm were for accounting services that
potentially could have been provided by County staff at a lower cost. (See paragraphs 209
through 212.)
· Employer/Employee Relationships. The BCC has a contractual arrangement
with an attorney to provide legal services; however, the relationship between the attorney
and the BCC includes many elements similar to that of an employee/employer relationship.
Accordingly, the BCC should seek a determination from the Internal Revenue Service and the
Florida Division of Retirement as to the employment status of the attorney to ensure
compliance with applicable Federal and State laws. (See paragraphs 213 through 219.)
· Out-of-Pocket Expenses. Reimbursements for travel and other
out-of-pocket expenses totaling $4,574 for contractors providing ecological, legal, and
accounting services to the BCC and the Clerk were not supported by adequate documentation
and/or were contrary to State law. (See paragraphs 220 and 221.)
Travel Expenses
The BCC and the Clerk incurred $488,521 and $160,793, respectively, for travel
expenses during the period October 1994 through June 1998 (total of $649,314). These
expenses, which included reimbursements to officers/employees for travel expenses incurred
and travel-related credit card charges, do not include Tourist Development Council travel
and business expenditures which are addressed separately in this report. BCC and Clerk
travel expenses are subject to Section 112.061, Florida Statutes, which governs per diem
and travel expenses of public agencies. Our audit included a detailed examination of all
BCC travel expenses incurred during the period October 1994 through June 1998 by
Commissioners or by the. BCC’s Administrative Supervisor, Director of Public Safety,
and Director of Public Works, and all credit card charges for travel expenses for the
period October 1996 through March 1998 to determine whether such expenses were authorized
in accordance with the above-noted State law and BCC guidelines. The results of our
examination of these expenses are discussed under appropriate subheadings below:
· In-County Travel.
The BCC’s written policies and procedures regarding travel refer to travel
allowances; however, it was not clear whether the BCC’s intent was to provide for a
travel allowance as contemplated by Section 112.061(7)(f), Florida Statutes, and
consequently, whether payments made pursuant to the BCC’s policy should have been
subject to withholding for Federal income tax and other employment taxes. (See paragraphs
226 through 233.)
The BCC’s written travel policies do not address under what circumstances
Commissioner travel is necessary. Additionally, documentation supporting travel expenses
did not, in several instances, demonstrate the reasonableness of in-county mileage claimed
by Commissioners and employees. (See paragraphs 234 through 240.)
· Unauthorized/Unsupported Travel Expenses.
The County’s records relating to travel expenses generally were not
adequate to demonstrate the authorized public purpose served and/or compliance with State
law. (See paragraphs 241 through 245.)
In February 1997, a former Commissioner wrote a check to the BCC for $7,239.56 to
return amounts previously paid by the BCC to the former Commissioner for in-county travel.
However, the check was never deposited and, subsequently, the former Commissioner’s
bank account, from which the check was written, was closed. The BCC has since been
unsuccessful in its efforts to recover this amount from the former Commissioner. (See
paragraphs 246 and 247.)
· Taxable Meal Allowances. Contrary to Federal regulations, payments for
nondeductible travel expenses (Class C meal allowances) were not reported as wages or
other compensation and were not subjected to withholding for payment of Federal income tax
and other employment taxes. (See paragraphs 248 through 251.)
Communications Expenses
· There was no documentation evidencing an independent review of telephone
billings and compliance with BCC policy regarding prior approval of calls subject to
reimbursement by employees was not documented. In the absence of such documentation, the
BCC and the Clerk could not be assured that the calls served an authorized public purpose.
(See paragraphs 252 through 256.)
· In some instances, the BCC had not demonstrated of record the need for assigning
cellular and digital radio telephones to Commissioners and employees. (See paragraphs 257
through 260.)
· Our audit disclosed that the BCC and the Clerk paid certain Federal, State, and
local telecommunication taxes from which they are exempt. Based on the applicable tax
rates and reported communication expenditures, the BCC and/or the Clerk paid as much as
$11,000 of exempt telecommunication taxes during the period October 1996 through March
1998. (See paragraphs 261 through 263.)
Tourist Development Council
Section 125.0104, Florida Statutes (the " Local Option Tourist Development
Act" ), authorizes a county to levy a tourist development tax pursuant to an
ordinance containing a county tourist development plan and subject to a referendum of the
electors in the subcounty special district in which the tax is to be levied. Pursuant to
Section 125.0104(4), Florida Statutes, the BCC established the Walton County Tourist
Development Council (TDC) by Ordinance No. 86-18. Section 125.0104(5), Florida Statutes,
specifies the uses of TDC revenues.
· Tourist Development Council Expenditures. TDC expenditures totaled
approximately $4,550,000 during the period October 1996 through June 1998. Our audit
disclosed numerous inadequately supported and/or improper TDC expenditures and several
deficiencies in the TDC’s purchasing practices as discussed below.
Our test of TDC expenditure vouchers disclosed deficiencies in the County’s
purchasing practices regarding the acquisition of goods or services for the
TDC, which
could result in the purchase of unauthorized goods or services, duplicate payments, or
budget over-expenditures. (See paragraphs 271 through 274.)
Our audit disclosed $85,022.03 of TDC expenditures that were not supported by
documentation that clearly demonstrated that such expenditures were reasonable and
necessary and/or served an authorized TDC public purpose. (See paragraphs 275 through
282.)
· Contracted Services. Contrary to good business practices and/or the
BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures, TDC purchases totaling $507,248 for
goods or services were acquired without benefit of competitive selection and/or written
agreements. (See paragraphs 283 through 286.)
Tourist Development Council Travel Expenses
TDC travel expenditures totaled $76,905.39 during the period October 1996
through June 1998. These expenses included reimbursements to officers/employees for travel
expenses incurred and credit card charges. Our audit disclosed numerous inadequately
supported and/or improper TDC travel expenditures as discussed below.
· Unauthorized/Unsupported TDC Travel Expenses. The County’s
records regarding TDC travel-related expenses generally were not adequate to demonstrate
the authorized public purpose served and/or compliance with State law. (See paragraphs 289
through 292.)
· Reasonableness of TDC Travel and Promotional Expenses. The BCC had not
adopted a policy that provided specific guidance as to what is considered to be reasonable
for TDC travel and promotional expenses and our audit disclosed several TDC
travel/promotional expenses that were questionable as to their reasonableness. (See
paragraphs 293 through 296.)
Vehicle Usage
Adequate vehicle usage logs were not maintained for many BCC-owned vehicles.
Also, assignments of vehicles on a 24-hour basis to employees of the Tourist Development
Council appeared to be contrary to BCC policy and were not justified in the BCC’s
records. Additionally, the procedure used to value the availability of employer-owned
vehicles to the employees was not in full compliance with United States Treasury
Regulations. (See paragraphs 297 through 299.)
Other Matters
· Nepotism. The County had not established adequate internal controls to
ensure compliance with Section 112.3135(2)(a), Florida Statutes, regarding the employment
of relatives. (See paragraphs 300 through 304.)
· Sunshine Law. Our audit disclosed instances of telephone polling of
Commissioners which may be in violation of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes (Sunshine
Law). (See paragraphs 305 through 308.)
· Year 2000 Compliance. The Clerk has initiated several actions intended
to assure that the Clerk’s and the BCC’s information technology systems and
resources are Year 2000 compliant but has not developed a written plan for assuring that
such systems and resources will be Year 2000 compliant. (See paragraphs 309 through 314.)
Because of the unprecedented nature of the Year 2000 issue, its operational effects and
the success of related remediation efforts will not be fully determinable until the Year
2000 and thereafter. Accordingly, we do not provide assurance with regard to the ultimate
impact of the Year 2000 issue on County operations.
The written responses of the Chairman of the Board
of County Commissioners, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and the out-going Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to the audit findings and recommendations included in audit
report No. 13391 are presented as Exhibit F. This can be downloaded with
the whole, official report in PDF format here.
