Summary

The scope of this audit of the Office of the Public Defender, Sixth Judicial Circuit, focused primarily on assets, liabilities, fund equities, revenues, expenditures and disbursements, budgetary controls, management reporting, and motor vehicle assignment and use. 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:

Separation of Duties

The Office of the Public Defender recorded expenditures totaling approximately $8,332,000 for salaries and benefits during the audit period. An essential internal control for the personnel and payroll functions is the separation of incompatible duties such that no one employee may complete all actions necessary to generate a payroll disbursement and also have access to the related payroll warrants. The Administrative Director at the Clearwater Office prepared and approved the original appointment papers for new employees, submitted the papers to the Florida Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) for data entry into the payroll system, and received the payroll warrants from the JAC for distribution. The performance of these incompatible duties by one employee limits management’s assurance that errors or irregularities (such as unauthorized payroll warrants), should they occur, will be timely detected. (See paragraphs 19 through 22.)

Special Pay Increases

Chapter 27, Part III, Florida Statutes, and the related Classification and Pay Procedures for the Employees of the Public Defender Offices of the State of Florida (Classification and Pay Procedures) adopted pursuant to Section 27.53(1), Florida Statutes, provide each Public Defender broad authority and discretion in applying established guidelines relating to employee salaries, including specific provisions for special pay increases. Notwithstanding, Office procedures relating to special pay increases and the documentation required therefor could be improved. (See paragraphs 23 through 28.)

Annual Review of Compensation Policies

Section 27.5302, Florida Statutes, provides that each Public Defender shall undertake an annual review of compensation policies for the position of assistant public defender. Within the context of comparable skills, experience, and responsibility, any inequities found to exist on the basis of gender or race shall be eliminated. Although Office management indicated to us that an annual review of compensation policies for the position of assistant public defender had been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 27.5302, Florida Statutes, and that all inequities found to exist on the basis of gender or race had been eliminated, Office records did not include documentation of the review process and the results thereof. (See paragraphs 29 through 31.)

Other Personal Services

The Office recorded expenditures totaling approximately $72,700 for other personal services (OPS) during the audit period. An essential internal control for the personnel and payroll functions is the separation of incompatible duties such that no one employee may complete all actions necessary to generate a payroll disbursement and also have access to the related payroll warrants. For OPS employees (other than law clerks) at the New Port Richey and Dade City Offices, the Office Manager interviewed applicants, hired applicants with approval of the Public Defender, verified and approved hours worked, and distributed payroll warrants. The performance of these duties by one employee limits management’s assurance that errors or irregularities (such as unauthorized payroll warrants), should they occur, will be timely detected. (See paragraphs 32 through 35.)

Leave Policies

The Classification and Pay Procedures, Sections 3.07 and 3.08, require that accurate records be maintained of all leave accrued and taken. Our tests of leave records disclosed numerous mathematical errors, primarily relating to the recording of leave accruals, that resulted in leave balance overstatements ranging from 2 to 40 hours. Failure to maintain adequate leave records could result in employees being paid incorrect amounts upon termination or being permitted to take more leave than actually earned. (See paragraphs 36 through 38.)

Tangible Personal Property

The Office reported tangible personal property totaling $974,275.35 at June 30, 1997. The reported balance was in material agreement with Office detailed subsidiary property records. A periodic reconciliation of detailed subsidiary property records to general ledger control accounts and capital outlay expenditures is necessary to ensure the accuracy and completeness of Office tangible personal property accounts and records. Our review disclosed that Office accounting procedures did not provide for the posting of tangible personal property transactions to general ledger control accounts and the periodic reconciliation of subsidiary records to these control accounts. Office personnel indicated that capital outlay expenditures were periodically reconciled to the subsidiary property records; however, the reconciliations were not documented. (See paragraphs 39 through 41.)

Motor Vehicle Assignment and Use

The Office operated six publicly owned vehicles as of December 31, 1997, including two vehicles owned by Pinellas County. Five vehicles were assigned on a pooled basis; one was assigned on a 24-hour basis. Established procedures required that vehicle usage logs be maintained for each vehicle and include information such as the driver’s initials, point of departure, destination, and ending odometer reading. Contrary to established Office procedures, the vehicle usage logs maintained by the Office during the audit period did not always contain adequate information to evidence that vehicle usage was primarily for authorized public purposes. (See paragraphs 42 through 45.)

The Public Defender’s written response to the audit findings and recommendations included in audit report No. 13275 is presented as Exhibit D.