Summary

This audit of the Office of the State Attorney, Third Judicial Circuit, focused primarily on assets, liabilities, fund equities, revenues and cash receipts, expenditures and disbursements, budgetary controls, management reporting, motor vehicle assignment and use, and public assistance fraud cases. For each of these areas, our audit included examinations of various transactions (as well as events and conditions) during the period January 1, 1997, through December 31, 1997. Matters coming to our attention relating to noncompliance with various guidelines and those relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control for those operations audited are as follows:

Disbursement Controls

One Office of the State Attorney employee performed incompatible procurement-related duties. This employee was responsible for approving purchase orders, authorizing vendor payments, and mailing the payments to the vendors. While our audit tests did not disclose any errors or irregularities resulting from this assignment of incompatible duties, the possibility exists that errors or irregularities could occur and not be subject to timely detection. Goods and services purchased during the 1996-97 fiscal year totaled approximately $430,000. (See paragraphs 20 through 23.)

Our tests of 40 expenditure items disclosed 6 purchases in amounts ranging from $475 to $2,058.20 and totaling $6,703.93 which were not supported by purchase orders or other documentation demonstrating that the purchases were approved prior to the expenditure being incurred. The issuance of written purchase orders to vendors prior to the purchase documents management’s authorization of the purchase of goods and services and provides a basis for controlling the use of appropriated resources. (See paragraphs 24 through 26.)

Travel Expenditures

A total of 13 Office employees attended a conference held in Key West, Florida, on July 27 through 30, 1997. With respect to 9 of these employees who each drove to the conference, it was not apparent from Office records that, in determining the most economical method of travel, adequate consideration was given to the number of employees making the trip. Section 112.061(7)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that the agency head shall designate the most economical method of travel for each trip (with consideration given to the time of the traveler, the cost of transportation, and per diem or subsistence required as well as the number of persons making the trip). (See paragraphs 27 through 33.)

The State Attorney’s written response to the audit findings and recommendations included in audit report No. 13267 is presented as Exhibit D.