|
|
Citizens for
Better Government
Blount County Tennessee
|
Audit Report shows Blount County missing 28 Sheriff’s vehicles
Lots of spin from the machine
The Blount County political machine has been in “spin” overdrive in the
last few weeks. All this activity surrounded the release of the State Audit
report on Blount County for the Fiscal Year ended June 30,2007. First, county
Finance Director, David Bennett sent a letter to all County Commissioners
designed to put the most positive (misleading?) interpretation on the highly
negative findings contained in the report. This letter was delivered to most
Commissioners on Christmas eve. The audit report did not reach most
Commissioners until New Years eve, or later, even though it is dated 12/5/07.
Of course this letter was leaked to the press between Christmas and New Years
and while Bennett was profusely quoted on the contents of the report, other
more objective sources were not given access to the audit report and, in many
cases, were not even in town and could not comment. Of course the articles
appeared in the press when most people were occupied by other holiday concerns.
Now Bennett is declaring the report a closed issue.
28 Missing Cars
The report clearly shows that 28 Sheriff’s vehicles are missing from
the county books. As shown in the table below, the audit report shows that the
Sheriff started the last fiscal year with 263 vehicles. It also shows the
Sheriff had 243 vehicles at the end of last year. When county purchases and
sales of Sheriff’s vehicles are accounted for, the table below shows that the
Sheriff should have had 271 vehicles. Thus 28 vehicles are missing.
All
figures refer to the total number of cars, trucks, vans, SUV’s and motorcycles.
Number of vehicles as of June 30, 2006 (FY 06) per page 291 of FY 07 state audit. 263
Vehicles purchased on 1/10/07 Purchase Order # 62331 24
Vehicles purchased on 5/23/07 Purchase Order # 64110 3
Vehicles auctioned or traded between 7/1/06 & 6/30/07 (FY 07) per Purchasing -16
Vehicles transferred to other county departments in FY 07 per Accounting -3
____
Total Vehicles that should have been on the books as of 6/30/07 271
Total Vehicles found as of June 30,2007 per page 291 of FY 07 state audit 243
Number of Missing Vehicles 28
Bennett’s Letter
In his letter David
Bennett, Blount County Finance Director, says that the problems he is having
keeping track of Sheriff’s vehicles were because the “Sheriff’s Department
signed off on the annual listing (vehicle inventory) without verifying its
accuracy”. He seems to believe that in his role of Finance Director he has no
responsibility to verify that taxpayer assets are being properly accounted for.
He says it is his “responsibility to ensure that assets cannot go missing” and
then admits that “there were vehicles on the inventory listing that have been
sold, scrapped or disposed of in previous fiscal years” and not reflected in
the vehicle counts. In a bizarre conclusion Bennett says “this finally put to
rest the issue of ‘where are the missing cars’.”
What the audit says
The audit does not say anything like that. Consider what the audit does say.
·
“The
Accounting Department provided an annual listing of inventory assigned to the
Sheriff’s Department; however, a representative of the Sheriff’s Department
signed-off on the annual listing without verifying its accuracy.”
- “The Sheriff’s Department did not always file the appropriate notifications with the Purchasing Department for (the sale of) surplus items”.
- “The Accounting Department did not review records of auction proceeds.”
- “Donated and forfeited seized vehicles had not been added to the Accounting Department’s inventory”.
- “One vehicle purchased in 2002 was not reflected on the Accounting Department’s inventory…. This discrepancy should have been detected by the Accounting Department when the invoice was paid”.
- “County policies require that the Accounting Department physically inspect selected items on its inventory listings each year on a random basis. Although an employee of the Accounting Department stated that this random inspection was performed, no record was maintained to document what items were examined”.
- “A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity’s financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity’s internal control. We consider the following deficiency (the finding that discusses the accounting for vehicles, ed) … to be a significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting”.
What happened to the missing 28 cars?
All of Finance Director Bennett’s bluster does not answer the important questions of the citizens of the county. He removed 28 Sheriff’s vehicles from the county books that may have a value of hundreds of thousand of dollars. The citizens deserve an accounting of what happened to these vehicles. This accounting should tell us: the description and VIN number of the vehicle; who signed the title of the vehicle away from the county; when the vehicle was transferred from the county; how much the county received for the vehicle; proof the money was received and deposited in the proper county account; etc..
We must remember that our Finance Director has an inherent conflict of interest. He is also Chairman of the County political machine. He is supposed to assure the accuracy and integrity of all the financial numbers of the County. He may have difficulty with this task when the most powerful politician in the machine, Sheriff Berrong, is involved. Call your Commissioners. Tell them you want a complete accounting for the 28 missing Sheriff’s vehicles. Remind them, citizens have been asking for this for a year.