Text · page 6 of 13
Although the Business Official approved the warrant weekly, the claims auditor was only provided with a copy of the warrant, check stubs and the corresponding claims packages for audit and approval biweekly after the claims had already been paid. The clerk told us that this had been the District’s claims audit process since prior to her starting in this position in early 2020. The Business Official told us that she was aware it was not appropriate to pay the claims prior to audit, but she believed that the District’s process to prepare and approve claims was adequate even if the claims auditor approved after payments were made. In addition, we spoke to three Board members regarding the claims audit process and found that the Board was not generally aware of the District’s claims audit process. Two Board members told us they thought the claims were paid after audit and one Board member told us she was unsure when the claims were paid. When checks are printed and mailed before claims are audited, the effectiveness of the claims audit process is diminished and there is an increased risk that improper or deficient claims could be paid. Our testing, discussed in more detail below, demonstrated that claims without sufficient supporting documentation were paid. Once claims are paid, the District could have difficulty recovering unauthorized or improper payments. Claims Were Not Always Supported by Sufficient Documentation We reviewed a sample of 75 claims paid by check during our audit period, totaling $1,804,5736 to ensure they were properly approved by the purchasing agent and department head, contained adequate supporting documentation, were appropriate District charges and that District officials complied with the requirements of the procurement policy. These claims included reimbursements to District officials and payments for the purchase of goods and services. All 75 claims reviewed were for appropriate District purposes and generally included the appropriate approvals. However, we found that several claims did not have sufficient documentation.7 l 47 claims, totaling $596,495, did not contain evidence that District officials complied with the District’s procurement policy.8 For example, claims for 6 See Appendix B for information on our sampling methodology. 7 Some claims had multiple exceptions. 8 The policy requires competitive bidding of all purchase contracts for supplies, materials and equipment involving expenditures in excess of $20,000 and all contracts for public works in excess of $35,000. For purchases of services, supplies, and equipment three informal written quotations are required for purchases from $1,001 to $5,000 and three formal requests for proposals or quotations from $5,001 to $20,000. For public works contracts three informal written quotations are required for purchases from $2,001 to $10,000 and three formal requests for proposals or quotations from $10,001 to $35,000. 4 Of f ic e of t he New York State Comptroller