DeKaU)(:ounty Board of

Commissioners Purchase Card Audit

CommissionerDistrict 5:
-----Unhappy Taxpayer& Voter.com
DEKALB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT NO. 5
REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES
FOR THE PERIODS APRIL 2004 TO APRIL 2014
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 5
O.H. PLUNKETT & CO., P.c.
" " ' " ' " " 1111 1111 1111 1111 ' III
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 lliunkett@ohpclla.com 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, aneed to refine your internal control framework or aneed 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.lelythe re~ponsibility o~the specified party to this r~port..Consequently,
we make no representation regardmg the sufficiency of the procedures as listed III the Table of
Contents either for thepurpose 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 beenreported to you.
This,report is intended solely for the information and use of the BOC and its management and
shou~dnot beused by anyone other than those specified parties.
Atlanta, Georgia
October 3, 2014
2 I P age
,.' 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
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. Theobjective 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 inthe normal functioning of aCommission office; (b) whether there is evidence of avalid
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 inthis 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 from2009 to 2011. Deficiencies
cited in these reports included: (a) improper or nonexistent transaction logs; (b) charges unsupported by
receipts or other documentation; (c) J ack of approval at the appropriate levels by authorized personnel as
identified inthe 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 ~ncJ usiveof the limited availability of any records prior to 2009. Additional efforts were therefore
made dsecure any documentation still inpossession 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 J uly 2006 special
election to fill the seat vacated by (then Commissioner) Congressman Hank J ohnson. District 5P-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 1former 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 expenditures appeared to beCounty business related.
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 intravel-related
1www.napcp.org
41Page
I .
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 afull year high total of $11,439 in2012.
Review of District 5P-Card expenditures revealed deficiencies inthe availability of transactional support
for both employees and the Commissioner. District 5 as awhole, 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 of the 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 ameans by which internal controls are enhanced on the use,
authorization, and documentation and approval process. Further, there should beareview 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
lYeRalb Luntv Board of ComrnissiorrersPurchase Card Review District 5 .-.
Agreed-Upon P rocedures 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 apoint in time. In an audit, the auditor
obtains reasonable assurance whether the financial statements arefree 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
arepresented fairly inconformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
This engagement, an agreed-upon procedures engagement, is defined as one inwhich weperformspecific
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 afinancial statement audit.
General I nformation
On April 22, 2014, the BOC passed aresolution 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 andtravel 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 aslofJ uly 30, 2010.
Pllrchte Card Policy
The 20p4 Purchase Card Policy states that " DeKalb County has established aPurchasing 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 useof 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 onprocured services and purchases.
61Page
I
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 2.004policy 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.
Mobile Policy
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 aBlackberry, PDA or
wireless card with monthly service paid by the department. Wireless devices and plans areto 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 J uly 3D, 2.010. The policy and subsequent revised schedules stipulate the
mandatory minimum retention period for accounting records including: Accounts Payable Files; Invoices;
J ournal Entries; J ournals and Registers; Travel - Registration Fee Payments; and Travel Authorization
and Reimbursement Records. All stated documents have aretention classification of " Temporary - Short
Term" . The stated accounting records have a 5-year minimum retention stipulation; the travel related
documentation has a4-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 1through 7(past and current), their
staff, alidthe Board of Commissioner' s Central Office personnel who maintained aP-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 thetransaction logon amonthly 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 inaccordance with established policy.
71Page
/ 1
r I I
DeKalb County 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
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 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
Travel- Per Diem
Tra~el - ~s~.I~~ne~us
Training an.~C~.~f.er~nce Fee - External
Books i3:nd Su.b~cripti~~s
other ~i.~~~II~ne?us.~har~~~
Operating Supplies
2004 2005
P-Card P-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 s
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 2,494.09 $" 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 1above, 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 5expense categories for P-card purchases aretravel, 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 onthe 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-Cardpolicy,
We noted that 99% of thetransaction logs provided for review lacked anapproval 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
Dekatb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District ~
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 in the stead of aDepartment 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.
10 1 P ag e
-------~ ~-
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 andC.o!" ,f~r~n~~Fee ~External
~oo~ a~d ~l:I~s~ript.io.ns
Other Miscellaneous Charges
I?P.'=!"~~~~ ~' :lP.P.!!..~~ ..__...
Grand Total
District 5
Expense A~~~unt
Other Professi.onal Ser:-i::es.
~o~tage
P~i~ting?e.tv.i~.e~
Travel- Airfare
...- ._ ....
Travel- Car Rental .._ ..__.. _.
Travel Accorncdations/Hctel
Travel- Per Diem
Trevef . Miscellaneous
Iraining aod C9~f~~~~: Fee - E~t~rnal
Books 20d.~u~s~ripti~.~s
Oth~.r ~~sc~I.I~" !~~9~~ ~ha.~~e~
2E.~~~~~g Supplie:;s' --- __ ,- __
Grand Total
District 5
Expe_n~e~C:~_?~!' t
Other P~<?~~_~s!_~n~J ~~C" ~~s ..
Postage
P~inting ~erv;.c:es
Travel- Airfare
Travel- Car Rental
Travel Accorncdatlons/Hotel
Travel ~p~:l?i,:~._
Travel- Miscellaneous
Training a.n~C:~nf~r~.!1ce Fee - External
Books and .~~bs~rip_t~~n~
.Oth~r Mi.5cel!a~eo~ Charges
O' pe~~i' :l~_~~~fl!...e.s ._
Grand Total
2004 -2014 2004 2005
P-Card %of
2006 2007
P-Card % of Account
P-Card Spend Account Total Total P-CardSpend Total
$ 15,446.80 0" 10 $ S 27,014.16
$ nla S S
S nla S . 300.00
S 300.00
S nla S S 198.80
S nla $ S
S n/a $ S
S nla $ .. s
S nla S .' -' .
S
S 17,699.54 0% S s 6,26(].06
S nla $. :
S
$ 3,a24.5a 9,6(]9.15 40% .$ 960,96' s 3,a31.48
$ nla ,$" 520.00 S
960.43 .
S 3,824.58 42,755.49 9% s i~780.96 $ 38,564.93
2010 2011
P-Card %of .' Accou' nt .-
P-Card Spend Account Total Total p-' carispen~ ... Total
s $ 13,640.09 0% $ $ 9,717.00
$ S 116.35 0% S
.... ,
" ' 2,5' 4
S
2.54 .... ,
S $ nla S' '- S -
,
S 1,925.18 $ 1,925.18 100% S 2,002.60 . S . 2,052:60
$ 229.59 $ 386.43 59% $_. ... :-.' $
S 3,095.83 S 3,095.83 100% $' 1~5il.40 .s i,8GB.66
$ 208.29 $ 568.29 37% $ ." .. 52:18 S 520.18
S 678.52 S 1,062.23 64% s.;
. .
91.70 .
S 459.83
S 365.00 S 365,00 100% .s i.iso.oo $:' . 1;130.00
S $ nla
.$<. ..... -. S ..
S 4,754.74 S 4,804,69 99% $":, . 3,830.55 s.: 3~562,62
S $ 128.34 0% $.:: ' ' ;...188:38' . s.:" ,938.42
$ 11,257.15 S 26,092.43 43% S ,:' " 8,825.35 $ 20,251.85
"'.:"
..... -;; ....
2014
P-Card %of
P-Card Spend Account Total Total
S S nla
S 54..96 S nla
S $ nla
S 546,00 $ nla
$ S nla
$ 1,239.32 S nla
S 30,55 $ nla
S 207.87 $ nla
$ 600.00 S nla
$ 225.00 S nla
S 1,728.27 S nla
$ 309.01 $ nla
S 4,940.98 $
2008
2012
2009
P-Card % of . " .... ::Acto"Unt: P-Cilfd %of P-Card ~ of
t:' -Card iotar~ P-Card Spend Account Total Total :P-C~rdSpend' , .." Totat:.. ' .:Tota:' .; Total
S 182.62 $ $ 5,200,00 0% '$,.. ", ,:i'.$ 25;245.72 .' :;,.; 0%;;' ,C 0% ,
.$ 354:76 $ 16.50 $ 16.50 100% .s: \' : ., ' ;:' .' :'$'" "; " ;:''0/.'" ,.' . 100%
$ 35<\.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 100% $' .",:. " $' :' ..... :' ;. ,;o/ a'.':::'( nla
S 6,313.3' 2: $ $ nla ,$.: ,,; .' ; $>..... " .' ti/a ;.' 98%
'$ . ' .356.45 $ $ nla $' : ' .' ......$:,;' . n/ a'<. n/a
$ 8~984:il3 $ $ n/aS' '$: <,.' nj.': 82%
$ 403.07. s s n/a.$ .: :->::' S:: .' 7i.00' ,,:,: 0%' 10%
'$ i;4]2:92 $ $ nlaS .,:;)" :." ' ,' ' ' :$ " 120:00, .' .' ' 0%" ' 20%
$ . .5,4~3:9a . f-$::- --irSc-1:.:6" ' ,1::;:5:.::3:o, 2:.::9-t--' 0=-:%:..., --p' S' c:" -' --' -:-:-c-c.;...',.-'..+$" ' .:.i:-' 4,C' 0::.:96:.:::::.87:...t-" -" -' -" -" " 0.;.:%c:;;:~ --ir.- __ ==' +::--' ==+-' =o:.......-+::::..,.c.:.,...!!:~=~~~=~-' -....:1~0:!:!0Y,~,' --i
$486 .. ' 31' $ $ nla S' :' , .. .... -$. ,-" , ', ::, , ':.n/ .' n/a.
$ 3i;669:#r S 2,494.09 $ 7,280.39 54%$> -' .2,126,46 $ .. 3,475.1..7 " 61%:" " ' 108%
$ " 1,211.32 $ 10,00 $ 1,061.02 1% '$ . "',," . x- $ .. 1,351:32 .... 0%:,,' .. iO%
$' " ' 57,282.7.8 s 2,574.59 $ 29,765.20 9% '$": .''2;126.40 $ 44,361.08 .. " ::5%' ; " ' :.' 44%
P-Caidl otal' '
s .182.62
$: 3s.\' .16
$ 354.00
$6,313.32
$' ' ' :356,45
S ' . 8,984.83.
$ .' .403:7
S .. 1;4n92.
$ 5,493.98'
:$486:3.1
$ ' ' ' . 31,669.20
$ l:;i,,11.32
$ 57,' 282;1a
.. ' .::.,.:'
2013
P-Card %of " .' :: AcccJ unt P-c" artJ %'of'
p,-tardS~~nd: .T~;" ( 'r~'~n/ P-Card Spend Account Total Total
$ 75.00 S 16,954.63 0%
$ 96.76 $ 96.76 100%
$ $ nla
S (220.40) S (220040) 100%
$ 33.80 S nla
S
1,417.34 $ 1,417.34 100%
S 32.20 s nla
$ 255.83 $ 255.83 100%
$ 1,405.00 .
S 2,094,00 67%
$ $ n/a
S 8,343.94 S 8,659.16 96%
S $ 1,369.78 0%
$ 11,439.47 S 30,627.10 ' 37%
' $,,.iiQ93.9!i$' ' ' d,993.98,. ' , ." ..100" /' :,,' :' "
Fig. 2- P-Card Expenditures as Percentage of Annual Account Total
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. %or" ..% .
. . Spend' 2004thru D' " Transactions
District ...2014 ... ' istrict w/Receipts
77%
L. May - Commissioner 431 82%
3;598:01' 6% 0%.: L. Davis 19 3% $
4;449)0 8% 25% 16 3%
E. Richardson
$ .:" .
,5;393:82 9% L. Young 6] 12%
Totals
4,403.98
$ 5,76732 13%
LMay
:',
.' .. Tobit
.%of
Spend
Travel - Airfare
Other Miscellaneous Charges 23,006.54 52% $
Operating Supplies 341.77 1% $
$ 182.62 0% Other Professional Services
$
99.30 0% Postage
$ 300.00 1% Printing Services
$ 356.45 1% Travel- Car Rental
$ 7,745.51 18% Travel - Accomodations / Hotel
$ 373.02 1% Travel - Per Diem
Travel- Miscellaneous 1,265.05 3% $
10% $ Training 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 5and represented the
next higilest concentration of expense.
Extended Review Details
Noting !heamount of Other Miscellaneous Charges, we reviewed the recorded transactions and observed
anaddi~' 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 andtravel related had other evidence to support
andcorroborate the expense as County related business activity.
12 I P age
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 beidentified as County related business expenses.
L Davis .Total'
%of
Spend
Other Miscellaneous Charges $ 3,598.01 100%
Total $ .. 3,598;01'
General Observations
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.
Extended Review Details
A card holder from2004 through 2006, we noted atotal of 19Office Supplies transactions which were
classified as Other Miscellaneous Charges.
Policy J nd 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
expen,!
.. . .. 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 - fv1 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%
Operatirig Supplies $ 110.00 2%
I
Total
s.
. 4,449.30
General Observations
Employee E. Richardson' s P-Card activity represented 8%of the overall District expenditures while also
accounting for 3%of thetransactions.
13/Page
I '
I I
I
- - - .DeKcilb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 5
Extended Review Details
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 - MisceJ laneous $ 29.98 1%
Other Miscellaneous Charges $ 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
General Observations
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 J nd 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
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card ReviewDistrict 5
District 5Summary 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 inthe
accounting systemwere charged to
DECUIR Catering Commissioner District 5. Wewere 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 onthose
procedures indicated above, wewere unable
to draw any conclusion onthesetransactions
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 atransaction 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 aconferences 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 inaccordance 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 aconferences 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 $1,069.63 Charged to L. Young' s card. This expense
Tucker, Georgia was not included onatransaction log and no
receipt was provided. The explanation
provided for this expense was that this
charge was for a September 11th
,
Commemorative dinner.
15 I P age
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase CardReview District 5
Non Pi-Card Expense Review
During the scope period of 2004 - 2014, we reviewed invoices from larger volume District 5 vendor
activity to ascertain the nature of expenses or services provided. All paid vendor invoices reviewed were
identified with County business related expenses or services. The vendors provided avariety of services
including the following; graphic design, public relations consulting, travel services for County staff,
other consulting services, printing, catering for government meetings, technology equipment suppliers,
office supplies, and other services. No unusual activity was noted for the vendor invoice activity
reviewed.
For the purpose of this report, a vendor is classified as a person or business receiving payment from
DeKalb County through the Accounts Payable process. Employees (i.e. current Commissioner Lee May
and former Commissioner Henry J ohnson) submitting reimbursement requests through the County' s
Oracle !Expense Systemfor expenses incurred while conducting County business are shown asvendors.
, , ,<,:) .. ":'
,':'#'~f.I" "~$Tot31 " .'", .: "" ...
District S-Top-VendorsbyDQllars(April 2004 ~Apri12014) .. iity~iCe~ ' " .Invoices -: .,' ." ,Inwice' Date Ra* . '
, . <"-.
BANK OF AMERICANA 520 $ 54,215.08 September 2004thruApril 2014
J AMIL K HOCKEIT' 94 s 36,403.35 J anuary 2009thruAugust 2012
PROFIlE MARKErJ NG&PUBLICRELAnONS LLC 15 s 28,300.00 November 2006thruApril 2008
LESIAHARRIS' 61 $ 27,480.00 J une 2012thruJ uly 2013
ERICCHUBBARD 24 s 19,000.00 August2004thruApril2006
LEEMA Y" 46 $ 17,668.04 J anuary 2006thru J uly2012
ASI SYSTEMINTEGRATIONINC 10 s 9,504.40 May 2012thru September 2013
GRANDHYATT WASHINGrON 8 s 8,067.68 September 2005thru August 2009
HB-IRYCJ OHNSOW 13 s 7,220.36 August 2004thruFebruary 2006
KARENTANKS-FLOWERS 4 $ 7,000,00 May 2005thruJ uly 2005
DELLMARKETINGLP 14 s 6,830.57 September 2006thru November 20]0
NACOCONFERENCEREGISTRATIONCENTER II $ 6,495,00 J anuary 2005thru J une2009
ERIK BURTON 3 $ 6,000.00 August 2006thru October 2006
THECOLUABORATIVEFIRMLLC 1 s 6,000.00 December2008
BESTPRlljrr INC 21 s 5,812.51 October 2006through November 2012
DEKALB<PFFICEENVIRONMENTS INC 9 s 5,492,89 December2006
DECATURTRAVELAGENCY 16 s 4,874.08 May 2008thruNovember 2009
Total 870 , $ 256,363.96
*Note: We identified persons who worked with the Districts on atemporary or consistent basis without
the classification of full tune DeKalb County employee. These individuals were identified as havmg a
I
1099 fi~i.ngwith DeKalb County and are considered professional service providers. Where available, we
reviewed a sample of their invoices and note the description of professional services to include: IT
services; professional writing and public relations consulting, website design and maintenance, and
community strategy.
**Not~: We identified full time employees who incurred County business related expenses which were
submitted through the County' s Oracle IExpense system for reimbursement. District personnel can submit
items fbr reimbursement directly for approval through the Accounts Payable system. These expenses are
not Pl~lchase Card initiated transactions, but instead out of pocket expenses which are submitted with
suppo ing documentation, and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Department using similar stringent
guideli res to ensurethey arevalid prior to approval and reimbursement.
16 I P age
DeKalb CountvBoard of Commissioners Purchase Card ReviewDistrict 5 .
Comments for Each Vendor
Bank of America NA
e Total payments to Bank of America for Purchase Card expenditures during thescope 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
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.
ASI System Integration Inc.
@ Computers andcomputer related equipment.
Grand Hyatt Washington
4l Tra1el expenses while attending &conducting County related business.
Henry C. Johnson
e The invoice for this expense itemwas subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removed from
records; no invoice was available for review.
Karen Tanks-Flowers
$ Thei invoice for this expense itemwas subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removed from
records; no invoice was available for review.
Dell Marketing LP
e Purchase of computers and computer related equipment.
NACO fonference Registration Center
corty related conference expenditures.
Erik Btfrton
e The invoice for this expense itemwas subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removed from
records; no invoice was available for review.
The Collaborative Firm LLC
e Payment inDecember 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 The invoice for this expense itemwas subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removed from
records; no invoice was available for review.
17IPage
beKalb (County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review-District 5
I
Decatur/ Travel Agency
@ County related expenditures for County business related travel.
18 I P age
I I