Town of
Neversink
Internal Controls Over Payroll
and Justice Court Operations
Report of Examination
Period Covered:
January 1, 2008 — December 1, 2009
2010M-24
Thomas P. DiNapoli
Table of Contents
Page
AUTHORITY LETTER 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
INTRODUCTION 5
Background 5
Objective 5
Scope and Methodology 5
Comments of Local Officials and Corrective Action 6
PAYROLL 7
Segregation of Duties 7
Personnel Policies 8
Recommendations 9
JUSTICE COURT 10
Accountability 10
Annual Audit 11
Recommendations 11
April 2010
A top priority of the Office of the State Comptroller is to help local government officials manage
government resources efficiently and effectively and, by so doing, provide accountability for tax
dollars spent to support government operations. The Comptroller oversees the fiscal affairs of local
governments statewide, as well as compliance with relevant statutes and observance of good business
practices. This fiscal oversight is accomplished, in part, through our audits, which identify opportunities
for improving operations and Town governance. Audits also can identify strategies to reduce costs and
to strengthen controls intended to safeguard local government assets.
Following is a report of our audit of the Town of Neversink, entitled Internal Controls Over Payroll
and Justice Court Operations. This audit was conducted pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the State
Constitution and the State Comptroller’s authority as set forth in Article 3 of the General Municipal
Law.
This audit’s results and recommendations are resources for local government officials to use in
effectively managing operations and in meeting the expectations of their constituents. If you have
questions about this report, please feel free to contact the local regional office for your county, as listed
at the end of this report.
Respectfully submitted,
The Town of Neversink (Town) is located in Sullivan County and is governed by an elected Town
Board (Board), which consists of the Town Supervisor (Supervisor) and four Board members. The
Board is responsible for the general management and control of Town operations. The Supervisor
is the Town’s chief executive officer and chief fiscal officer and is responsible for the Town’s daily
operations, including maintaining accounting records and preparing and distributing various financial
reports to the Board. The Town employs a bookkeeper who is responsible for processing the Town’s
computerized payroll.
The Town Justice Court (Court) operates with two Town Justices (Justices) and one part-time Court
clerk. The Justices’ principal duties involve adjudicating legal matters within the Court’s jurisdiction
and administering moneys collected from bails, fines, surcharges, civil fees and restitutions, with
assistance of the Court clerk. The Board is charged with overseeing the Court’s financial activity.
The objective of this audit was to determine if Town officials properly managed Town operations for
the period January 1, 2008 to December 1, 2009. Our audit addressed the following related questions:
• Did Town officials ensure that internal controls over payroll were adequately designed?
• Did the Board and Justices provide adequate oversight of the Court’s financial activity?
Audit Results
Town officials did not ensure that internal controls over payroll were adequately designed. During our
audit period, the bookkeeper was responsible for all aspects of the payroll process with no oversight.
The Supervisor did not review the completed payrolls or certify that they were accurate. There was
only one collective bargaining agreement in the Town, which covered highway employees. There were
limited guidelines regarding the benefits of employees not covered by this agreement. In addition,
these non-highway employees were responsible for tracking their own leave time. As a result, there
was an increased risk that employees could receive wages, salaries and benefits to which they are not
entitled.
The Board and Justices did not provide adequate oversight of the Court’s financial activity. For
instance, the Justices did not ensure that the Court clerk prepared monthly bank reconciliations and
accountability analyses. In addition, the Board did not provide for an annual audit of the Court. As a
The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed with Town officials and their
comments, which appear in Appendix A, have been considered in preparing this report. Town officials
generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in our report and indicated they have initiated
corrective action.
The Town Justice Court (Court) operates with two Town Justices
(Justices) and one part-time Court clerk. The Justices’ principal
duties involve adjudicating legal matters within the Court’s
jurisdiction and administering moneys collected from bails,
fines, surcharges, civil fees and restitutions, with the Court clerk’s
assistance. The Board is charged with overseeing the Court’s financial
activity.
Objective The objective of this audit was to determine if Town officials properly
managed Town operations. Our audit addressed the following related
questions:
Scope and We examined financial records and internal control practices for the
Methodology payroll and Court operations of the Town for the period January 1,
2008 to December 1, 2009.
1
2007 estimate, U.S. Census Bureau
DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 55
such standards and the methodology used in performing this audit is
included in Appendix B of this report.
Comments of The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed
Local Officials and with Town officials and their comments, which appear in Appendix
Corrective Action A, have been considered in preparing this report. Town officials
generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in our report
and indicated they have initiated corrective action.
Town officials did not ensure that internal controls over payroll
were adequately designed. For the fiscal year ended December 31,
2009, the Town spent approximately $1.4 million on salaries. The
Town’s bookkeeper was responsible for all aspects of the payroll
process during our audit period with no oversight, and the Supervisor
did not review the completed payrolls or certify that they were
accurate. Town officials entered into a six-year collective bargaining
agreement (agreement) with its highway employees on January 1,
2007. However, Town officials provided limited guidance regarding
the fringe benefits to be provided to Town employees who were not
covered by this agreement. In addition, employees not covered by the
collective bargaining agreement were responsible for tracking their
own leave time. As a result, there was an increased risk that these
employees could receive wages, salaries and fringe benefits to which
they were not entitled.
Segregation of Duties The Board is responsible for establishing policies and procedures
over the payroll process, and the Supervisor is responsible for
ensuring the proper implementation of these established controls.
These policies and procedures should ensure that no one individual
controls most or all phases of a transaction. In addition, each user’s
access rights to the payroll software must be restricted based on his
or her job function to prevent unauthorized changes from occurring.
For example, the same person should not be capable of, or be
responsible for, creating, updating and deleting employee records;
activating new employees after their information is initially entered;
inputting all payroll changes; collecting timesheets; entering hours
worked or salaries paid, and printing and distributing paychecks. If it
is not feasible to segregate duties, the Supervisor should implement
compensating controls, such as having someone independent of the
payroll process review completed payrolls. Further, the Supervisor
is required to certify completed payrolls. This certification should
include verifying that payrolls are based on actual hours/days
worked or authorized leave time, employees are paid in accordance
with Board-authorized rates, and net payrolls agree with the payroll
journals.
DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 77
The Board did not establish policies and procedures to ensure that
internal controls over the payroll process were appropriately
designed. We found that the bookkeeper was responsible for virtually
all aspects of the payroll process, such as creating, updating and
deleting employee records; activating new employees after their
information is initially entered; inputting all payroll changes;
collecting timesheets; entering hours worked or salaries paid;
and printing and distributing payroll checks. Furthermore, Town
officials did not restrict users’ access rights to only those areas of the
payroll software needed to complete their job duties. For example,
the Supervisor’s assistant had access to all areas of the payroll
process, including the ability to make changes to salary rates and
add employees, even though it was not her responsibility to do so.
In addition, the Supervisor did not implement compensating controls
to minimize the risk associated with the lack of segregation of duties
and did not certify completed payrolls.
Personnel Policies The Board must clearly define and authorize compensation to
ensure that employees receive only the salary and fringe benefits
that the Board intends for them to receive. The Board may establish
policies or pass annual resolutions for employees that are not covered
by individual employment contracts or collective bargaining
agreements. Specifics regarding fringe benefits, such as a detailed
leave accrual system,3 should be included in these policies. A good
leave accrual system must have supervisory oversight to ensure
that the accrual and use of leave is authorized and approved. An
employee’s leave time accumulation and use should be stipulated by
his or her employment contract, collective bargaining agreement, or
policy.
2
We compared the names and Social Security numbers of all active employees
from the Town’s payroll software to the Federal Social Security database.
3
Leave accruals represent time-off earned by employees.
The Supervisor told us that the Town has not had any problems with
employees’ fringe benefits and has not needed any other employment
contracts, collective bargaining agreements, or policies in the past.
The Supervisor also said that leave time had always been on the
honor system, and that he trusted his employees. In addition, he stated
that most Town employees have been employed for a long period of
time and know what benefits they are eligible for. Town officials were
working on an employee handbook to address some limited payroll
and personnel issues while we were on site.
The Board and Justices did not provide adequate oversight of the
Court’s financial activity. For instance, the Justices did not ensure
that the Court clerk prepared monthly bank reconciliations or
accountability analyses, or retained the detailed listing of liabilities.
In addition, the Board does not provide for an annual audit of the
Court. The Town had $2,964 in unidentified funds that were turned
over to OSC as a result of our audit. The lack of monthly bank
reconciliations and accountability analyses together with the lack of
an annual audit are contributing causes for the unidentified moneys
that went unnoticed until our audit.
Until October 2009, the Court clerk did not correctly perform
accountability analyses or bank reconciliations and was unaware
that she was required to retain bail records. The Justices did not
provide oversight to ensure that the Court clerk was performing
her duties accurately. The lack of monthly bank reconciliations and
accountability analyses was a contributing cause for the unidentified
moneys that went unnoticed.
Annual Audit Town Justices are required to present their records and dockets to
their governing boards (i.e., Town Board) for audit at least once each
year. After the Board audits, or hires someone to audit, the financial
records and reports of the Court, the Town Clerk should enter the
results of that audit into the minutes of the Board’s proceedings. This
review will help the Board fulfill its oversight responsibilities by
developing appropriate safeguards to protect public assets from loss
or abuse.
The Board did not audit, or hire someone to audit, the Court’s
financial records during our audit period. According to the Court clerk
and the Supervisor, the Court clerk provided the Board with all the
required information, but the Board did not review it. The Supervisor
told us that he was unaware the Board was required to review the
Court’s financial records. If the Board had performed the annual
audit, as required, they may have detected that the bank account was
not reconciled.
Recommendations 4. Court personnel should retain bail records and prepare monthly
bank reconciliations, including an analysis of the monthly
liabilities and a comparison to the available cash on hand. The
The local officials’ response to this audit can be found on the following page.
The objective of this audit was to determine if Town officials properly managed Town operations.
More specifically, we determined whether the internal controls over the payroll process were
adequately designed and if the Board and Justices provided adequate oversight over the Court’s
financial activity. To achieve our audit objective and obtain valid audit evidence, we performed the
following audit procedures:
For Payroll –
• We gained an understanding of the payroll process and the current internal control system.
• We reviewed four health insurance buyouts to determine if the buyouts were accurate,
supported, and in accordance with the authorized policies.
• We reviewed direct deposits for two pay periods to determine if payments were properly
authorized and made accurately.
• We reviewed leave records for eight employees to determine if the accruals and usage were
accurate, recorded and approved.
For Court –
• We gained an understanding of the Court process and the existing internal control system.
• We reviewed accounting records to determine if they were complete, accurate, and up-to-date.
• We reviewed transactions as detailed on the bank statements and recorded in the Court’s
records to determine if they were for legitimate Court-related purposes and supported by
appropriate documentation.
• We reviewed bank account reconciliations to determine if cash balances per the accounting
records reconciled to adjusted bank account balances and to known court liabilities.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards (GAGAS). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objective.
Serving: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Serving: Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton,
Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming counties Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, Washington
counties
Serving: Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Serving: Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Westchester
Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins counties
counties