Text · page 5 of 12
began collecting certain payments using an online electronic payment system that deposited fees directly into the Clerk’s account. While press-numbered duplicate receipt books were used during the audit period to record cash payments,5 these press-numbered receipts were not used in numerical order. Department officials also used multiple receipt books simultaneously. Not using receipts consecutively makes it difficult to ensure there are no disparities in the receipt sequence and identify missing receipts. Cash and checks were securely maintained until the Co-Director responsible for recording cash receipts collected the funds. The Co-Director told us that she took the cash and checks to her residence and once a week she entered the payments in a database software program. Once payments were entered, she used the database software to generate two duplicate “program payment sheet” reports. The report lists all payments included in the deposit. One report is retained in the Department and the other report is provided to the Clerk along with the cash and checks. Generally at the beginning of each week she remits the funds to the Clerk who told us she deposits the funds within one to two days. While the Co-Director gave a program payment sheet to the Clerk with the We found that deposits, the customer receipts were not attached to the report. The Clerk told us she only verified that the program payment sheet report matched the amount 311 payments received. It does not appear that any Town officials periodically reviewed the cash receipts reported by the Co-Director to determine whether they matched the (30 percent) amounts collected according to the press-numbered receipts. As a result, the Co- totaling Director had almost complete control over cash receipts without adequate review or oversight. almost We reviewed all 1,056 payments on the program payment sheets from January $27,000 were 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. We found that 311 payments (30 percent) not deposited totaling almost $27,000 were not deposited in a timely manner; deposits were made 11 to 68 days after receipt. This occurred because the Co-Director did not in a timely provide the funds to the Clerk in a timely manner. manner; We also traced the Co-Director’s press-numbered receipts attached to a program deposits were payment sheet to the deposits and found seven cash receipts from June 2018, totaling $440 that were not deposited in the bank. However, it appeared these made 11 to payments were entered into the database in October 2019 after we requested 68 days after the payment records. We attempted to review receipts from June 2017 through December 2017, but the receipt books were not retained. The Co-Director told us receipt. that these receipt books were from a prior Co-Director’s tenure and the records were not retained. 5 Receipts were issued for check payments if requested by the customer. Of f ic e of t he New York State Comptroller 3