 |
| Hermann Hearsay "Crystal Ball News Reporting and News Analysis" TM |
Knowing what happened yesterday in the news is nice. But knowing what is about to happen tomorrow in the news is even better!
This is the first of our new "CRYSTAL BALL NEWS REPORTS"TM wherein we tell you what is about to happen as opposed to what has already happened. We gaze into our "crystal ball" and report what will soon become the news. We report the future while our competitors tell you what you may already know anyway. They report the news AFTER the fact. We will endeavor to tell you what the news will be BEFORE it has even occurred.
True, our competitors are very good at reporting what has already happened. In fact, one of our competitors reports the news just minutes after it has occurred. We have reason to believe they are working to report the news even faster. We believe they will soon be publishing the news just seconds after it occurs. They will do this by carrying small notebook computers and bulky camera equipment
with them at all times. However, no one in the news media has figured out how to report the news
BEFORE it actually occurs. We believe that we here at Hermann Hearsay have finally figured out how to do it! We believe that our vast network of news sources, our wealth of experience, our superior journalistic insight, our fierce journalistic independence, and our super-sensitive "nose for news" will enable us to move much faster than others in the news business as we "gaze into the future".
What Hermann Hearsay will be attempting to do has never been done before. We will be breaking new journalistic ground. Therefore, we will not always get the story 100% correct. Recognizing the great difficulty of what we will be attempting to do, we will nevertheless strive to be as accurate as we can be. Initially, we will strive to be 80% correct. Later, after we have gained experience with "CRYSTAL BALL NEWS REPORTING"TM, we will strive for 90% accuracy. We figure that 90% will be a pretty good accuracy rate to shoot for inasmuch as many current "after-the-fact" news reports contain factual errors, omissions, typographical errors and personal political bias. They are never 100% accurate even though they are published AFTER the news has already occurred. Some publishers are less accurate and less faithful to the TRUTH than others!
With that as a lead-in, here is our first "CRYSTAL BALL NEWS REPORT"TM ......
Missouri State Audits of Gasconade County
A "Crystal Ball News Report"TM
By Jimmy Oldsun, NDRIRSRWRAFTC & Editor
In an earlier report, Hermann Hearsay reported on Gasconade County's 2010 Preliminary Missouri State Audit Report which was posted at Missouri State Auditor Susan Montee's website. For reference, our earlier report may be quickly accessed by clicking on the following link: http://hermannhearsay.blogspot.com/2010/09/state-auditor-issues-audit-report-for.html
In this preliminary audit report, we learn that there were four main findings in the portion of the audit which was conducted by state employees. These findings are summarized as follows:
- County Treasurer's Reconciliations - The County Treasurer does not reconcile receipts to deposits, and as a result, has not been able to identify the cause of differences between bank account balances and fund balances. The County Treasurer maintains three checking accounts, a savings account, and a certificate of deposit. The County Treasurer indicated that shortly after taking office in January 2007, he deposited some monies into the wrong bank accounts, and efforts to correct these errors and reconcile the bank balances and fund balances have been unsuccessful. The County Treasurer's settlement for the six (6) months ended December 31, 2009 indicates the total of the county's bank balances exceeded the total balances of the various county funds by approximately $19,700.
- Prosecuting Attorney's Controls and Procedures - Procedures are not adequate to ensure bad check restitution collected by the Circuit Clerk's office is reported to the Prosecuting Attorney's office. As a result, the Prosecuting Attorney and the Circuit Clerk both collected bad check restitution on the same case, resulting in an overpayment of $810. There are no procedures to require supervisory approval of accounting adjustments to the Proscecuting Attorney's computerized accounting system. Some receipts are not recorded immediately upon receipt. There are no procedures to reconcile amounts recorded on manual receipt slips to amounts recorded on the computer system, and some receipts during 2008 and 2009 were not recorded in the accounting system. Bank reconciliations were not prepared from April 2008 to September 2009, and the bank account had an unidentified balance of $114 at December 31, 2009.
- Sheriff's Controls and Procedures - Accounting duties are not adequately segregated. Disbursements incurred by the Sheriff's office for advertising do not appear to represent a necessary use of county funds. During 2009 and 2008, the Sheriff's office purchased band booster advertisements totaling approximately $1,000 per year, which were paid from the county's General Revenue Fund and approved by the County Commission. The County Commission discontinued paying for advertising from the General Revenue Fund in 2010, but the Sheriff has continued purchasing advertising from the Sheriff's Law Enforcement Fund, which is controlled by the Sheriff and not by the County Commission.
- Fund Transfers - The county has not documented a basis for transferring amounts from the Union Electric Fund to the General Revenue Fund. Disbursements from the Union Electric Fund are restricted for emergency preparedness and related items, and county officials indicated the transfers are to cover emergency preparedness expenses incurred in the General Revenue Fund. However, county officials or employees have not prepared documentation of the actual or estimated emergency preparedness expenses from the General Revenue Fund.
- Evaluate the county's internal controls over significant management and financial functions.
- Evaluate the county's compliance with certain legal provisions.
- Evaluate the economy and efficiency of certain management practices and operations, including certain revenues and expenditures."
And when will county officials complete their review of the audit and prepare their official response(s) back to the Missouri State Auditor's office? Well, progress seems to be slow and enthusiasm for this task seems to be low! The County Commission had planned to meet in closed session to discuss the audit report on Thursday, 9/16. Unfortunately, County Clerk Lesa Lietzow could not attend the meeting due to a conflict with a funeral. The planned meeting was canceled. Clerk Lietzow will be unable to attend the Commission Meeting this coming Thursday, 9/23 because of a conflict with a state-wide meeting of County Clerks in Jefferson City on the same day. So, unless a special meeting is scheduled for the audit review, I presume that county officials will not be getting together to review the state's audit report until Thursday, 9/30. By the apparent lack of urgency with which county officials are responding to the state's audit report, I presume they are no more interested in learning from it and making improvements to financial controls and procedures than they were after the 2002 and 2006 audits! I mean if you can't meet on successive Thursdays, do you all think you might be able to meet on some other day of the week? There are, afterall, four other days in the work week. Duh!
OK, that is all background information. It's "after-the-fact" news. Any news publisher can (or could if they really want to) tell you what I've just told you. Now I'm going to tell you what is going to happen in the future ..... "CRYSTAL BALL NEWS REPORTING AND NEWS ANALYIS"TM ..... the kind of news that is available ONLY HERE at Hermann Hearsay. No one else will be as informed on this subject as you! You will be "in the know" and everyone will want to hear what you have to say!
- The County Commission will not discuss the audit findings in an open public session. One commissioner will urge them to do so, but he will be over-ruled by the others. (90% probability)
- The County Commission and other county officials will make no special efforts to discuss the audit findings prior to 9/30. Furthermore, t is possible that some other "conflict" will arise and this will give them an excuse to push off discussion of the audit findings until October. The later the better for those who are running for re-election! (80% probability)
- The County Commission and other county officials will make no special effort to host county-wide public forums for the purpose of reporting the audit reports to the citizens of the county. (80% probability)
- Hermann Hearsay will closely monitor the Missouri Auditor's website, and we will post the audit report just as soon as it is posted to the site. (100% certainty)
- A group of concerned citizens will form together and pay to have the audit report published in the Hermann Advertiser-Courier and the Gasconade County Republican (that is if they will accept the ad placements). (60% probability)
- The audit findings will not be published in any future County Commission Meeting Minutes. The meeting minutes afterall are reserved for reporting on Owensville Alderman John Kamler's stump speeches, ejections of mouthy senior citizens from commission meetings, and things of that sort. (82% probability)
Hermann Hearsay is taking the position that the 2010 audit report should be published widely, and we think county officials should provide a public forum during which the results of the audit can be discussed openly with interested citizens. Afterall, the 2010 audit report represents a "report card" of sorts on the performance of our elected county officials. Citizens of Gasconade County have a right to know how their elected officials are performing their official duties. If the 2010 audit is NOT widely published, there will be little impetus for making sorely needed systemic changes in the county's financial controls and procedures. The 2002 and 2006 audits pointed out numerous deficiencies in county controls and procedures. What have county officials done to correct these deficiencies? Who took responsibility for tracking a master plan of projects to improve critical controls and procedures? Who should have taken responsibility for tracking a plan of improvement and for holding each county department accountable?
No comments:
Post a Comment