DeKalb County P-Card Audit: Commissioner Elaine Boyer

~-- -~

DeKalb County Board ofCommissioners Purchase Card Audit

Commissioner District 1:Un -payer &-V-Oter.com

DEKALB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

COMMISSIONER DISTRICT NO. 1

REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

FOR THE PERIODS APRIL 2004 TO APRIL 2014

DeKalb Co~j,i:Y·Board of Com-missioners Purchase CardReview District 1

O.H. PLUNKETT & CO., P.Ce I11/1 1111 11111111 1111 1111 IIII II11 .ACCQUNTANTS & CONSULTANTS· 1800 PEACHTREE RD. NW' SUITE 333' ATLANTA GEORGIA 30309' VOICE (404) 351-6770' FAX (404) 351-6845

1050 1rTHST, NW· SUITE 600· WASHINGTON, DC • 20036' VOICE (202) 496-5307' FAX (202) 466-2400 IEMAIL. [email protected] WEB· WWW.OHPCPA.COM

DeKalb County Georgia Board of Commissioners.Commissioner District No.1DeKalb County.Georgia

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

We have performed the procedures engagement as listed in the Table of Contents, which wereagreed to by the DeKa1b County Board of Commissioners ("the BOC"), solely to assist withmonitoring proper application of certain policies and procedures relating to analyzing theexpenditures of each member of the BOC and their staff for the years commencing April 2004through April 2014.

These services are delivered by applying a set of agreed-upon queries to records contained inyour system database via computer-assisted data-mining technologies. The objective of theseprocedures was to identify within the database any anomalies or other matters that would requirefurther investigation. Such anomalies could be an indication of an error, either intentional orunintentional, a need to refine your internal control framework or a need to improve operationalefficiencies.

The County's management is responsible for the contents of the database and all relatedaccounting records. This procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestationstandards established by the Arrierican Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiencyof these procedures is solely the responsibility of the specified party to this report. Consequently,we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures as listed in the Table ofContents 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 theexpression of an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might havecome ro our attention that would have been reported to you.

This ~eport is intended solely for the information and use of the BOC and its management andShOUl n:~ anyone other t~ those specified parties.

~~~~"Ld\~Atlanta, GeorgiaOctober 3, 2014

21Page

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

31Page

District 1

REPORT ON AGREED-UPON. PROCEDURES

COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1DEKALB COUNTY GEORGIA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2004 to APRIL 2014

Table of Contents

PAGE NO.

A. Executive Summary 4-5

B. Agreed-Upon Procedures Defined 6

c. General Information 6

D. DeKalb County Policies , 6-7 ..eI Purchase Card Policy8' Travel Policyiii Mobile Policy• Retention Policy

E. Summary of Procedures Performed : 7-8• Purchase Card Expense Review~ Non Purchase Card Expense Review

Ir·rG.

Summary of Findings Purchase Card Transactions 9-11e Generale Specific

Purchase Card Review - Individuals 12-14

Summary of Key Transactions Exceptions 15-16

Non Purchase Card Transactions 17 -18& General

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review District 1

Executive Summary - District 1

We performed those procedures stipulated in the DeKalb County's Georgia Professional ServiceInvitation to Bid, (ITB No. 14-100413) as mandated by the Board of Commissioners' resolution datedApril 22, 2014. The objective ofthese procedures were to review DeKalb's County Procurement Card (P-Card) expenditures to consider (a) whether purchases were for appropriate material goods used by aCommissioner in the normal functioning of a Commission office; (b) whether there is evidence of a validwork product when a service is purchased; and (c) what evidence exists that meals and travel expenseswere for County business. The scope of this review was to cover the periods commencing April 2004through April 2014. Tbe sufficiency of the procedures performed is solely the responsibility of thoseparties 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-Cardusage Je $63 per transaction. 1 Efficiencies include the cost of vendor maintenance, purchase orders,wages bf employees that process payments, and resources for check disbursements. InconsistentcomPli11ce with P-Card policies provides a less than desirable internal control environment and reduceslevel of ransparency for County resources utilization. .

During our engagement, we reviewed internal audit reports issued by the Internal Audit & LicensingDivision on all of the District and Central offices covering transactions from 2009 to 2011. Deficienciescited in these reports included: (a) improper or nonexistent transaction logs; (b) charges unsupported byreceipts or other documentation; (c) lack of approval at the appropriate levels by authorized personnel asidentifid in the Policies and Procedures Manual; and (d) incorrect coding of transactions by budget linecategories. Our procedural review revealed deficiencies concurrent with those previously found by theInternal Audit reports. A substantial portion of the supporting documents including the P-Cardaccount~ng logs were never prepared or submitted in accordancewith the Policies and Procedures adoptedby the d:ounty.

This pr~cedural review took into consideration the County's five (5) year mandatory record retentionpolicy ihclusive of the limited availability of any records prior to 2009. Additional efforts were thereforemade tal' secure any documentation still in possession by former employees. Letters were sent to addresseson file with DeKalb County Human Resources requesting assistance in providing supportingdocumentati on.

Specifically, our review of District 1 covered a period for which former Commissioner Boyer held herposition during the entire in-scope period. In total, there were three (3) persons within the district whowere g~anted purchasing cards. Of the 3 cardholders observed, we received no supporting documentationfor 1 former employee whose transactions totaled $18,846. The district's P-Card purchases commenced in2006 and totaled $103,665.

Individual card expenditures ranged from $18,846 for N. McBride to $56,321 for former CommissionerBoyer. The concentration of purchase card expenses were applicable to county business, related travel toseminars, operating supplies, and Other Miscellaneous Charges. Other Miscellaneous Charges was thedesignated classification for a total of $73,269, or 71 % of the total district charges. Other MiscellaneousCharges was observed to include but was not limited to the following: office supplies, food for meetings,professional consulting services, public relations, minor technology purchases, website service supportand expenses for community outreach communications.

1www.napcp.org

41Page


Purchase card usage within District 1 steadily increased every year from 2006 through the most recent fullyear total of $30,832 in 2013.

Our review of District 1 P-Card expenditures showed specific deficiencies in a lack of availabletransactional support for both employees and the former Commissioner. We observed transactions thatalthough they were not in violation of the existing P-Card policy at the time of purchase, were not clearlyin line with the intention of the stated policy. Specifically, we referenced transactions for excessive meals.Contrary to policy, we observed several purchases which have been deemedpersonal in nature, and thusrequired reimbursement to the County. Reimbursable expenses were identified to include airfare, rentalcars, and meals. Due to the unavailability of transaction logs and receipts, other transactions remainquestionable regarding their business purpose, and have been noted as such.

In addition to the review of the P-Card transactions, we performed a review of the non P-Cardexpenditures incurred by District 1. In our review oftop vendors, we noted the identification of vendor M.Rooks Boynton and the $83,250 he received for "professional consulting services, research, legislativeanalysis and lobbying" from September 2009 through November 2011. At the time of release of thisreport, we acknowledge former Commissioner Boyer's public admission that these expenditures weremade for non-existent services. Preventive measures, which should be adopted, include insuring that allcontractors submit a Statement of Work with a signed Professional Services Agreement. Additionally,progress invoicing of ongoing work production should detail the level of completion, thus providing someobjective measure to be considered prior to subsequent vendor payment.

A~ a best practice, and in light of the Boyer/Boynton admitted activities to defraud the County, it isadvisable that policies and procedures be both bolstered andlor newly implemented for controls related tovendor acceptance and reviewed prior to submission of payment for services rendered. Preventivemeasures which should be adopted include insuring that all contractors submit a Statement of Work witha Signe~ Professional Services Agreement that remains on file. Additionally, progress invoicing and themandatory provision of an example of ongoing work product with details regarding the level ofcompletion for all agreed upon services should be considered as a standard prior to vendor payment.

Policies I and proced~res provide. a valuable mana~ement .control o~ P-Card op~rations. Mand~toryprocedures help provide an essential framework for mtegratmg financial and operational best practices.compli1nce by all levels of County staff, including the Commissioners is recommended to ensurefinanCial transparency and objective stewardship of County resources.

To miti ate non-compliance and exposure to fraud, waste and abuse, mandatory training on P-CardPolicies and Procedures should be implemented for all authorized users. A periodic reassessment of thesepolicies and procedures should be viewed as a means by which internal controls are enhanced on the use,authori ation, and documentation and approval process. Further, there should be a review of the P-Cardsystem integration with the County's organizational structure. The current policy is vague on whichmanagefent position is accountable and appropriate to review and approve Commissioner leveltransact, OilS.

SIPage


Agreed-Upon Procedures Defined

An agreed-upon procedures engagement differs from a financial statement audit. A financial statementaudit is a "snapshot" of the financial picture of an organization at a point in time. In an audit, the auditorobtains reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, examinesevidence supporting the financial statements, and assesses both accounting principles used and overallfinancial statement presentation. The auditor then renders an opinion on whether the financial statementsare presented fairly in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

This engagement, an agreed-upon procedures engagement, is defined as one in which we perform specificprocedures and report findings. We did not perform an audit or provide an opinion relating to the subjectmatter or assertion about the subject matter. Rather, we performed only those procedures that have beenagreed upon with management and report findings. These procedures often are at a more detailed levelthan 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, Georgiadirecting the Executive Assistant to obtain the services of a Certified Internal Auditor or a CertifiedGovernment Audit professional to:

1. Review the expenditures for the past ten years (2004 through 2014) by each member of the Boardof Commissioners, his/her respective staff and office, and the central office of the Board ofCommissioners.

2. The auditor shall review expenditures to consider (a) whether purchases were for appropriatematerial 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) whatevidence exists that meals and travel expenses were for County business.

The review was conducted in accordance with the following DeKalb County policies in effect during theprocedural scope period, 2004 to 2014: Purchasing Card Policy, March 2004; Mobile Policy; TravelPolicy; and the Retention Policy as required by the Georgia Records Act (O.C.G.A § 50-18-90 et seq.),whose revised schedules were filed with the Division of Archives and History, Office of Secretary ofState aSIOfJUIY30, ~01O.

Purchase Card PolleyI

The 2094 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 andservices whose value is less than $1,000. This program is intended to be an alternative method for thepurchase of small dollar, miscellane?us ~xpense ma~erials and services. These policies and proceduresapply td the use of the Bank of Amenca Visa Purchasmg CardlP-Card. .

DeKal~ County is exempt from paying State of Georgia sales tax. This infers that DeKalb County staffmay need to provide written documentation to vendors and service providers for recognition of theexempt Istatus on procured services and purchases.

The 2004 Purchasing Card policy has been updated and was replaced in April 2014. For the purposes ofl

our review, we followed the guidelines of the March 2004 policy which was in effect for the entire scopeperiod.

61Page


Travel Policy

The DeKalb County Travel Policy, revised April 2006, sets out the guidelines for approval for travel andtraining expenses incurred while conducting authorized County business.

Mobile Policy

The DeKalb County Wireless Policy, March 2009, sets out the guidelines for employees who require awireless device for performing essential job functions. Employees may be issued a Blackberry, PDA orwireless card with monthly service paid by the department. Wireless devices and plans are to be used forofficial County business only.

Records Retention Policy

The DeKalb County Records Retention Policy is filed with the Division of Archives and History, Officeof Secretary of State as of July 30, 2010. The policy and subsequent revised schedules stipulate themandatory minimum retention period for accounting records including: Accounts Payable Files; Invoices;Journal Entries; Journals and Registers; Travel - Registration Fee Payments; and Travel Authorizationand Reimbursement Records. All stated documents have a retention classification of "Temporary - ShortTerm". The stated accounting records have a 5-year minimum retention stipulation; the travel relateddocumentation has a 4-year minimum retention stipulation.

This procedural review factored the County's 5-year minimum record retention policy inclusive of thelimited availability of any records prior to 2009. As a result, the transaction logs and receipts prior to2009 were limited during our review.

Procedures

P-Card Expense Review

The P-Card review consisted of Board of Commissioners for Districts 1 through 7 (past and current), theirstaff, and the Board of Commissioner's Central Office personnel who maintained a P-Card for any periodbetween April 2004 and April 2014. For each individual identified, a history of all P-Card transactionswas obtained and reviewed against established policies and procedures. We reviewed cardholdertransactions, 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


Non P-Card Expense Review

We reviewed both vendor payment activity for accounts where the percentage of P-Card expenditures inrelation to the accounts payable transactions was relatively small as shown in Fig. 2, Pi-CardExpenditures as Percentage of Annual Account Total. This review was targeted on the followingaccounts:

6l Other Professional ServicesG Other Miscellaneous Charges& Travel-AirfareCD Travel-Accommodations/Hotel and, Training and Conference Fees

We identified select vendors with high payment activity and reviewed supporting documentation to assessif expenditures were for County business and to the extent possible, actual service or product wasreceived by the County.

8\Page

-~'---

Del\cllo County Board of Commissioners

Review Results for District 1

District 1Expense Account

Other Professional ServicesPostageOther Tel ecommunication Se rvi cesPrinting ServicesTravel- Airfare

Travel - Car Rental

Travel Accomodations/Hotel

Travel - Miscellaneous. ~ . ~ ..Training and Conference Fee: External.

Other Miscellaneous ChargesOperatingSupplies

.Books and Subscriptions

ZOO4-2014.P~Ci"d Total.

s 1,225.00.S. 1,404,60$ 3,163.,79$ .. 1:isi;%:$ 1,5$8;60's 2,435;81s .i,7~:li$ '.' 427:21'$ '1,525:00:$ 73,268,81:s 1Q,i~Q:09:$, 5;:B6,4~,

Grand Total

Purchase L_, d Review Dis\.. ,~( C

2004 2005P-Card Total P~Card

$ - $ ..

$ - $ -$ - $$ - -s -$ - $ : -$ - :$' r ,

$ - $, .". :-:":.

S :s ' .. _ ...~- ::~''''.~~~>-':

$ '$:':.-)+'...

-$ $

.. :- .-$ $

;~-. :.- ",

. -$ - s. ,"'7".:. :

$ - $ .-

20112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012

$

2013 2014P-Card ..P~Card

s - $ - $ -$: ... $ 1,225.00s 772,30$ 54,93

s

s - $ 559,73

$ 402,96 $ 750,00

$

$ - $ ,. '. $ -$,,-s 17,64

$

$$ -

$ 817.CXl·$ 356:00

$

$ - '$:'-' $$< ~, $ - '$ -

$ 316,64 $..1;941,83

$

$ - $' 425,60$ - .$ .>':

s

$ -$.' ':::: ,

$ -$ 1,713.13

$

s .$;-$ -$ 17D.2s$ - $--s 500,00 $, 1;025,00.

$ 3,062.75 $,'3;938,74' $ 4,816,Q7$<6;88S.5(i'. s 7,291,83$ S;74,td7

$ 876,85 $;' 1,937,34

$ 18,363,37 $' 16,343:77$ 4,262,27 .$",3;676,86·.$ 68,00.$ .. i;147,Q3

$ $,'11,98$ 7,359_83 '$ 10,889.41,

$$$

$ 26,611. 97 $ 30,832,32

P-Card

177.34

256,96

3,818.711,365,932,403,289,264,86

Fig. 1- TotaLPi-Card Spend/or District I (April 2004 -April 2014)

Key Observations

• As shown in Figure 1 above, P-Card usage did not begin within District 1 until 2006, The concentration of P-Card expenditure occurswithin five categories including Operating Supplies, Other Miscellaneous Charges, Travel related expenses, Other Telecommunication,and Books and subscriptions, Other Miscellaneous Charges was, observed to include but was not limited to the following: office supplies,food for meetings, consulting, public relations, minor technology, website service support, and' expenses for community outreachcommunication.

• During our review we noted 1,160 transactions totaling approximately $103,665 during the April 2004 through April 2014 scope period,Based on the documentation provided, approximately 470 transactions (40%) were supported by receipts, The other transactions reflectedapproximately 60% which no receipt was observed. Although most activities appear to be County related, without the accompanyingreceipts reasonable assurance cannot be determined.

• Based on the documentation we reviewed, reimbursements to the County for non-County expenses for E. Boyer totaled $14,351; B.Lundsten reimbursements to the County totaled $6,494,

9\Page

De. .0 County Board of Commissioners Purchase .d Review Dis. .fT

• Per P-Card policy, transaction logs are to be submitted monthly, include a listing of all transactions and, be signed as evidence of itsreview and approval. Transaction logs were unavailable for all transactions from 2006 - 2013. Less than half of transac ion receipts were-available for the 2006 - 2013 period. Solely, the transaction logs for 2014 were available. Although most activities appear to be Countyrelated, without the accompanying receipts reasonable assurance cannot be determined.

• Many, not all of the total P-Card expenses were identified to have a County business purpose. Some P-Card expenses were determined tobe non-County related. District staff reimbursements to the County were noted for various transactions by E. Boyer and R. Lundstentotaling $20,845 (based on documentation provided during the review) which do not appear to be County business related. However,without all the accompanying receipts reasonable assurance cannot be determined.

• We noted that 100% of the transaction logs provided for 2014 review lacked an approval signature as directed by the P-Card policy. Notransaction logs were provided for transactions prior to 2014. The lack of signed approval on the transactions logs was observed ascommonplace and occurring frequently within all Districts. A global recommendation was made for this evidentiary measure to be re-emphasized and clarified regarding who is required to do so. The P-Card policy states the cardholder's "Department Director" is to signthe transaction log. Clarification will be provided within the Districts that Commissioners are to sign the logs in the stead of theDepartment Director.

e We observed 68 transactions totaling approximately $4,460 with receipts which were not properly exempted from taxes per the P-CardPolicy.

10 I P age

Dek.c"tJ County Board of Commissioners

District 1 2004 -2014

P-Card Toial

$ 1,225.00.$ 1i404;60.s 3,163.79

Printing S7rvic::es s "1,'152.96Travel> Airfare $. 1.S~8.'PO:Travel . Car Rental .$ 2,435.81

!ra.vel Accomodatlcns/Hotel s .1,713.13

Travel- Miscellaneous $ 4i7.21Training and Conference Fee . External .$ ·l.:S.~:O~Other Miscellaneous Charges .$ 73,268~81Operating Supplies s lO;520~.09_~..?_~~_~~~"~~~~.!!~' "'_' 'I-·:::S-"-,-,-~5",,c:;Bo:::· ··:::·~·c:45"4

Grand Total ~$===i=03=,=6=65=··.=·45~'

Expense Acc.ount

Other Professional Services

PostageOther Telecommunication Services

District 1 2004 -2014

Expe:n~~ Account P-Canf TO,talOther Professional Services $"';' i.225.00".

~:~:arg;elecommunic,tion Services .~ ...,.. .!:::t·P.rint!~~~.e.:vice~ S . ':1,"i52~:96~'Travel- Airfare S 1~~~8~.~Travel- Car Rental .-S· .;~ ..~.~~;~~.:T~av~1 Accornodatioru/Hote! s ~;713.13·Travel- Miscellaneous :$' '42~.•1.1·T!"inin~ ~~.d C~':Ifer::nce Fee - .Exter~~1 $ lA~;o'o':.~t.her !",~scella.!:!.~c;>~sc:~~r~es -s ·;']t268:81Operating Supplie.s. s .10,520.0·9Booksaoosu~~~'i~Pt~io~n~, __ ~ ~$7-~~,~.:,~··s~:,i30~.·=··~;~~5~·:

Grand Total '$.... 103,665.45'

District 1 2004 -2014, .

E~pe.ns.~ ~ccount ·~-C~~~:.j~~.~'..Other Professional Services '$ .~;~.~e~_:.~,?staC:.e .s 1;404.60

.Other Telecornmunlcatlon Services: $." ':~:.~.f~f?~,;Printin~ Services :$ ..... :.;.~;....: F~~'.~~..Travel- Airfare s <. ,'],,~~~j~} .

Travel- Car Rental .$. . ... '2,435.8L

T~a~el Accornodaticns/Hctel '$ . . "~1:7i3':i;3:

§E~~i::~:·:;:,External :$'> ,..:!.i.:5;'l'2~~'\4;·5;..• .

~~o~an~~~~~ripti~. . ~~~~,~~"",~~Grand Total $: ·'103;665.45·

Purchase L .. .J Review Dist..: .1

2004

Account Total

$ 12,356.50

s 45.61

$ 39.00

s$s$s$ 25.00

$ (344.70)

$ 413.48

s 144.00

S 12,678.89

2008

Account Total

$ 38,464.00

$ 692.29

$s 48,868.00s$$$

S$ 11,321.07

$ 805.58S$ 100,150.94

2012

Account Total

s 30.892.65

S 1,803.95

$ 652.18

$ 5,649.07

$ 817.00$$ 316.64

SS 500,00

$ 18,363.37

$ 4,262.27

$ 876.85

s 64,133.98

2005 2006 2007P-Card Account P·Card %of ·PeC.rd· . 'Account ·P-Card'%-of-Spend Total Total Spend Total, Total.

$ S 30,287.50 0% S s 42,>\45.58 0%s $ 942.05 0% $ $ 221.18 .0%$ S n/' $ $. n/.S s n/' S· $ ·12,550.00 0%S $ n/· S $ , nf.S S nla S... s nfaS s nfa s s. nfa

S $ nfa $ .. $ nfas s 3,780.00 0% $ ... $ 1.483.32 .O"A.

$ 3,062.75 $ 44,466.66 7% $ 3,938.74 $ 12;'50.82 32%

s $ 151.15 0% .s $ "fa.$ S 90.00 0% $ S ·70.00· O"A.

s 3,062.75 $79,717.36 4% $ 3,938.74 $ 69,220.90 . 6%

2010 2011

P·Card Account P-Card "loaf p.c.rd .Acc~unt P-Card "of·

Spend Total Total Spe~(:I:-:·· Totai. , . Total

$ S 91,950.00 0% s $56,043.63 0%

S $ 46.90 0% '.$ 559)3 s -, :559.73. iOO%

S s nfa $ ,. .. $ nfaS S n/' S $ ·nfaS s nla S .425.60 $.. . ~/a .'$ S nla S - $ of•..$ S nla $ $ ·n/a

$ S nfa S $ ':'.:: "Ii$ $ nfa $ s .... .. - nfa .$ 7,291.83 $ 7,291.83 100% $ 8;744.07. $ 9~s71.54 ., 91%.

s 68.00 $ 201.00 34% s 1,:147.03 $ '..1,268.39·· 90%'

$ S n/· s 12.98 $ 12 ..98· .. 100""s 7,359.83 $ 99,489,]3 7% S~O,889,41. ·S67,456.27 .. 16%'

P-Card %of

Total P-Card Spend .

... - .1>..-C.riL?,ofAccoVntT9ta'f :;':TotalP-Card Spend

0% $ 15,977.:50 iJo,f,0"/0 $0%

nlanfa $". ' '203.40; ·".0%nfanla $. $ .' 1;817,05.'.0%

nfa.$. s . ·895.00· .·0>·0"/0"'·0%

0%0%0%

s ..0%

6,889:50· Sl08;738.97. r /';~6'"

26,611..97

2009

p-Ce-d Spend

P·Card % of P;Card:." of;Total :: :"e-Card ~'pend :.: A~c~~~~~T~·~1.:'.::;rotar-:"

0%

0%nfa $.0%nfa .$

nlanf·nf. $nfa s

$ 4,816.07 43% s.:0%nla s

s 4,816.07 50/.

2013 2014

Account P-Card %ofTotal Total

$ 1,225.00 100%

s 17.64 100%

$ nfa$ (1,524.94) 0%

$ (59.00) 0%

s 1.341.77 13%

$ n/,$ 256.96 100"/0

$ nfaS 3,818.71 100%

$ 2,17S.14 63%

S 3,286.80 73%s 10,538.08 88%

300.58

P·Ca,d Spend

P-CardSpend

1,225.0017.64772.30

402.96817,00

177.34316,64

500,00

18,363.374,262.27

876,8541% :$_ . 30,83232. S· 66,=.99 '''.:47'',.'·;; $ 9,264.86

Fig. 2 - Pi-Card Expenditures as Percentage of AnnuaL Account TotaL

lllPage


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

1;163

%TotalP~Card'%of ..,..Transactions

,2004 th~u20i4; District

..' TotalP-Card . %ofSpend 2004 thru D' trl Transactions. .' 2014" ' IS rJ,ctw/ReceiPts

District 1Breakdown by Personnel ..

s, '56;321.34, 54% .'. .4%.)'E. Boyer - Commissioner 483, 42%

R Lundsten 523·· 45% s '.28,:49~:16 27%;86%'

13%'157N. McBrideTotals

E.Boyer .,Total %of.Spend

Other Professional Services $ 1,225.00 2%

Postage $ 906.90 2%

Other T el+communication Services $ 1,219.72 2%

Printing S+rvices $ 235.37 0%

Travel - AJirfare $ 1,598.60 3%I

Travel - Car Rental $ 2,435.81 4%

Travel - Accomodations I Hotel $ 1,713.13 3%

Travel - Miscellaneous $ 227.60 0%

Training a d Conference Fee -External $ 1,440.00 3%

Other M iJcellaneous Charges $ 35,960.11 64%I

Op eratin~ Supplies $ 5,630.76 10%

Books an~ Subscriptions $ 3,728.34 7%.. ." --

'Total; ;~ 56,321~34"

General ObservatIOns

commis!sioner E. Boyer's P-Card activity represented 54% of the overall District expenditures whileaccounting for 42% of the transactions. The concentration of her spending was in Other MiscellaneousCharges, operating supplies, books and subscriptions.

Extended Review Details

During 'the scope period of 2004 through 2014, approximately $36,000 was expended in OtherMiscellaneous Charges, of which $14,188 was spent for meals and food services. The remainder wasspent for travel, hotels, automobile rentals, and other miscellaneous charges.

No transaction logs were available for our review prior to January 2014. We noted a total 483transactions during the scope period, of which 462 transactions (96%) were not supported by receipts Iavailable for our review. Ms. Boyer's P-Card transaction history is part of an investigation for Countyexpense activity. Accordingly, some transaction support was unavailable for review; without theaccompanying receipts reasonable assurance cannot be determined.

12 I P age


There were employee reimbursements to the County for various P-Card transactions for approximately$ 14,3 51 based 011 the documentation provided. Based on these reimbursements by Ms. Boyer, it wouldappear these were not County business related.

R Lundsten . Total' .' ·%of"',

, Spend

Postage $ 497.70 2%

Other TelecommunicationServices $ 1,944.07 7%

Printing Services $ 917.59 3%

Travel- Miscellaneous $ 199.61 1%

Trainingand ConferenceFee -External $ 85.00 0%

Other MiscellaneousCharges $ 18,068.91 63%

Operating Supplies s 5,283.17 19%

Books and Subscriptions $ 1,502.11 5%

. Total,

}8;498;l(i,'.. _._,.' '$'. '

General Observations

R. Lundsten's P-Card activity represented 27% of the overall District expenditures while also accountingfor 45% of the transactions. The concentration of his P-Card expenditures was in support of the office inOther Miscellaneous Charges, Operating Supplies and Other Telecommunication services.

Extended Review Details

A card holder from 2006 through 2014, we noted Other Miscellaneous Charges includes $10,144 formeals and catering expenses, $2,065 for minor technology & telecom costs, and approximately $2,810 forsuppliesl Most transactions were observed to be business related and properly supported with receipts.Mr. LUl~dsten had 520 transactions of which 449 (86%) had supporting receipts; 71 transactions (14%)had mis1ing receipts.

There 1ere employee reimbursements of approximately $6,494 to the County for P-Card transactionsbased 0, the documentation provided. Based on the reimbursements by R. Lundsten it appears these were

t C ty busi latedno OUIll usiness re a e

" ·.%ofN,McBrrde '.' TOta(

' ............. S~e!1d

Other MiscellaneousCharges $ 18,845.95 100%I

Total $ .....i8;S45.95....

Genera Observations

Fonner I employee N. McBride's P-Card activity represented 19% of the overall District expenditureswhile also accounting for 13% of the transactions. Other Miscellaneous Charges included $14,920 foroffice and technology supplies, $2,396 for meals, $1,510 for subscriptions, municipal affiliation fees,postage, catering and meeting expenses. We noted that these expenses appear to be County related, but I

can't provide reasonable assurance without having the opportunity review related invoices.

13IPage


;Extended Review Details

A card holder from 2006 through 2010, we noted all (100%) of the P-card transactions totaling $18,845were not included on a transaction log. There were extenuating circumstances, which may have impactedrecord retention. Ms. N. McBride was a valued employee who became deceased by 2012. Although allactivity appears County related, without the accompanying receipts reasonable assurance cannot bedetermined.

14 I P age I

I

I


District 1 Summary of Key Transaction Exceptions

I Date Vendor : Amount Comments ...

l. 9-4-2010 University of GA $599.00 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.Bookstore The item was not included on a transaction

log and no receipt was provided.2. 3-9-2012 Air Tran $187.00 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.

The item was not included on a transactionlog and no receipt was provided. This expensewas reimbursed to the County.

3. 5-1-2012 Hyatt Hotels $1,189.50 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card .Savannah . The item was not included on a transaction

log and a receipt was provided. This expensewas reimbursed to the County.

4. 5-20-2012 Stars and Strikes $440.00 Charged to R. Lundsten's card. Theseexpenses had supporting receipts, yet were not

5-20-2012 Stars and Strikes 900.00 on a transaction log. These expenses werereimbursed to the County.

5. 5-30-2012 Delta Air lines $344.60 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.l" Ticket These 2 airline tickets were not included on a

transaction log and no receipt was provided.Delta Airlines $344.60 These expenses were reimbursed to the

I 2nd Ticket County.6. 9-28-2012 Hampton $159.48 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.

Inn Savannah The item was not included on a transactionlog and a receipt was provided. This expensewas reimbursed to the County.

7. 3-26-2013 Pandora Perimeter $128.40 Charged to R. Lundsten's card. This expensehad a supporting receipt, yet was not on atransaction log. This expense was reimbursedto the County.

8.6r-

2013 Delta Air lines $243.80 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.l" Ticket These 2 airline tickets were not included on a

6- 0-2013 transaction log and no receipt was provided.

IDelta Airlines $243.80 These expenses were reimbursed to the2nd Ticket County.

9. 10'-9-2013 Summitcove.com $707.00 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.The item was not included on a transaction Ilog and no receipt was provided. This expensewas reimbursed to the County.

10. 1C-18-2013 AT&T Wireless $239.73 Charged to R Lundsten's card. This expensewas not included on a transaction log, yet a I

receipt was provided. Two wireless paymentsoccurred 111 Oct 2013. Monthly wireless'expenses ranged from $100 up to $275 toAT&T.

I

11. 10-22-2013 Enterprise $925.89 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.Rental Car The 2013 transaction was not included on a

transaction log and no receipt was provided.I

15 I P age

III

- ~,---I_I _


1-13-2014 Enterprise $l32.l8 The 2014 transaction was on a transaction logand a receipt provided. These expenses werereimbursed to the County.

12. 10-26-2013 AT&T Wireless $274.57 Charged to R Lundsten's card. This expensewas not included on a transaction log, yet areceipt was provided. Two wireless paymentsoccurred m Oct 20l3. Monthly wirelessexpenses ranged from $100 up to $275 toAT&T.

13. 12-16-2013 Com cast Cable $50.00 Charged to R. Lundsten's card. This expensewas for internet service installation. Thisexpense was not on a transaction log, yet areceipt was provided.

14. 12-16-2013 Able $56.65 Charged to R. Lundsten's card. This expenseTowing Company was for auto towing service charges. This

expense was not on a transaction log, yet areceipt was provided.

15. 1-5-2014 Delta Air Lines $356.00 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.Both were not included on a transaction log ,

2-3-2014 Delta Air Lines $382.00 and no receipt was provided.16. 1-31-2014 T Mobile.com $684.34 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.

The item was not included on a transactionlog and no receipt was provided.

17. 2-20-2014 McKendricks $452.31 Charged to Commissioner E. Boyer's card.Steakhouse This transaction was included on a transaction

log; yet no receipt was provided. This expensewas reimbursed to the County.

16 I P age

DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Purchase Card Review

Non P-Card Expense Review

District 1

For the purpose of this report, a vendor is classified as a person or business receiving payment fromDeKalb County through the Accounts Payable process. Employees (i.e. Commissioner Elaine Boyer)submitting reimbursement requests through the County's Oracle I Expense System for expenses incurredwhile conducting County business are shown as vendors.

District I-Top Vendors by Dollars (April2004-Apri\20H),".# of~, +... .. $.l'Qtal.:> '," .

.Invoices •·.'Jnvoites· 'I"~6iCenat~Range

Total 679,105.04

October 2004 thru August 2010

BANK OF AMERICA NA 1187 $ 106,884.67 May 2004 thru April 2014

OAK GROVE COMMUNICA TlONS 47 $ June 2004 thru September 2012100,600.00

83,250.00 September 2009 thru October 2011

LANDMARK COMMUNICA TIONS 12 s 88,918.50 May 2006 thru May 2012

75,925.00 March 2008 thru December20!3

M ROOKS BOYNTON 36 $

CONNOR ASTAIRE*

71,521.90 February 2005 thru November 2007

62 sDEBBIE CARROLL 11 $

STEPHANIE EMCBRIDE 32 $ 43,35500 Ju Iy 2004 thru November 2009

20 $ 26,000.00 March 2009 thru October 2010

BOB LUNDSTEN' 23 $ 34,606.99

SCOTT DA VID WYLIE

12,547.50 January 2005 thru April 2013

NET PROGRESSION INC 13,012.00 February 2006 thru June 20096 $

11,983.48 September 2013 thru April 2014

ELAINE CBOYER*' 23 $

APACHE POUTICAL

NAZIRMOUSELU MD

3 s.10,500.00 May 2009 thru June 20093 $

1,465 : $

*Note: We identified persons who worked with the Districts on a temporary or consistent basis withoutthe classification of full time DeKalb County employee. These individuals were identified as having a1099 filling with the DeKalb County and are considered contract employees. Where available, wereviewed a sample of their invoices and note the description of professional services,

**Note. We identified full time employees who incurred County business related expenses which weresUbmittkd through the County's Oracle I Expense System for reimbursement. District personnel cansubmit items for reimbursement directly for approval through the Accounts Payable system. Theseexpens s are not Purchase Card initiated transactions, but instead out of pocket expenses which aresubmittFd with supporting documentation, and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Department usingsimilar tringent guidelines to ensure they are valid prior to approval and reimbursement.

Comments for Each Vendor,

Bank of America NA

G> Amount is for total payments to Bank of America for Purchase Card expenditures during thescope period,

Oak GJove Communications

o Professional media, public relations and public policy consulting services were provided by OakGrove Communications from June 2004 through September 2012. We reviewed two invoicestotaling $7,500 for the most recent periods in 2012 and 2009,

Landmark Communications

• Professional web development services were provided by Landmark Communications for theperiod between May 2006 and May 2012. We reviewed a June 2009 invoice with service

17 I P age


descriptions to include "Providing Newsletter Design and Distribution to Community Citizens onKey Issues. " The vendor invoice activity reflected a range of $50 - $5,124 for the 5-year period.

M Rooks Boynton

G M Rooks Boynton received funds from September 2009 through October 2011. At the time ofthis report, we reviewed several invoices related to the professional services provided by MBoynton. We noted that at the time of our review, an ongoing separate investigation whichincludes these specific payments and their propriety related to former Commissioner Boyer forthese services. In observation of these circumstances, we limited our review of the relatedactivity.

Debbie Carroll

fl) The invoice for this expense item was subject to the 5-year retention policy and was removedfrom records; no invoice was available for review.

Stephanie E. McBride

G Professional consulting services were provided by Stephanie E. McBride from July 2004 throughNovember 2009. We reviewed a July 2009 invoice that described services provided as"Professional Consulting Services, Research and Editing. " S. McBride was said to have alsoprovided administrative support and community outreach assistance. The vendor invoice activityreflected a range from $225 - $4,500.

Scott D1vid Wylie .

e Professional consulting services were provided by Scott David Wylie from March 2009 throughpctober 2010. We reviewed a March 2009 invoice which described services provided as['Consulting Constituents; Community Outreach,' and Providing Demographic Research onfommunity Issues. "The vendor invoice activity reflected a range from $750 - $2,000.

Net ProgressionI

o frofessional services were provided by Net Progression, Inc. dba f2 Technology from February2005 - May 2009. We reviewed invoices that described the service provided as: "Delegate I

Service License; Access to Delegate software for email and website management. " The vendorinvoice activity reflected a range from $1,334 - $4,000 for the 3-year period.

Nazir Mouselli, MD

Pro essional consulting services were provided by Nazir Mouselli, MD from May 2009 through June200~. We reviewed 2 invoices which described services as "Consultation Services for Committee For Ia Bltter North DeKalb County. " No further detail for services was available. The vendor invoiceactivity reflected a range of $3,000 - $3,750 for the 3-month period.

18 I P age

DeKalb County P-Card Audit: Commissioner Elaine Boyer

Documents

Transcript of DeKalb County P-Card Audit: Commissioner Elaine Boyer