Summary

The Auditor General is authorized by State law to perform independent audits of governmental entities in Florida.  Pursuant to a request by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Section 11.45(2)(l), Florida Statutes, we conducted an operational audit of the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority (Authority).  The summary of our findings for the period July 1, 2005, through September 30, 2006, and selected actions taken prior and subsequent thereto, is as follows: 

Finding No. 1:  We disclosed several matters in this report in which we question the public purpose served by incurring certain operating expenses or providing specific benefits to certain Authority employees.  The Authority has no funding source for operating purposes, other than expressway system user tolls.  Accordingly, the decision to provide these expenses affects the tolls charged to the expressway system users.

Finding No. 2:  Although revenue reports were provided to the Board, Authority staff had not provided periodic expenditure information, including budgetary status, to the Board since March 2004.

Finding No. 3:  The Authority had not provided for an adequate separation of duties, restriction of access to its computerized accounting system, or compensating controls, in certain areas of operations.

Finding No. 4:  The Authority’s written policies and procedures, necessary to assure the efficient and consistent conduct of accounting and other business-related functions, and the proper safeguarding of assets, had not been updated to incorporate policy and procedure changes.

Finding No. 5:  The Authority had not officially adopted position descriptions, minimum requirements, pay grades, or pay ranges for its staff, and did not adequately document, verify, or maintain information about applicants and other significant personnel actions. 

Finding No. 6:  The Authority’s employment agreements with its former Executive Director and several current employees contained provisions for severance pay without documenting in its public records the public purpose served.  In addition, employment agreements did not provide for finite employment terms; therefore, the Authority was bound to pay severance unless the employee was terminated “with cause.”

Finding No. 7:  The Authority granted educational leave to an employee that enabled the employee to qualify for a different profession without documenting in its public records the public purpose served.

Finding No. 8:  The Authority contracted with a law firm to provide general counsel services and employed a Legal Affairs Director without conducting a cost/benefit analysis, and Authority records were not sufficient to ensure there was no duplication of effort between the law firm providing general counsel services and the Legal Affairs Director.  Further, although the Authority initiated a Request for Proposal for general counsel services, it had not analyzed or competitively selected for these services since 1997.

Finding No. 9:  The Authority’s contract with the law firm did not provide for a maximum contract amount.  In addition, Board approval of hourly increases for specified law firm personnel was not always documented in the Authority’s records.  The law firm hired subcontractors to perform lobbying services contrary to the terms of the contract, the Authority’s procurement policies, and without written contracts between the Authority and the subcontractors. 

Finding No. 10:  Although the Authority’s Request for Proposal procedures allowed the Board to re-rank the selection committee’s recommended short list, the basis and justification for re-ranking the selection committee’s recommendation and selection of the contractor was not required or adequately documented in Authority records. 

Finding No. 11:  The Authority expended $1.5 million dollars from July 1, 2001, through September 30, 2006, for lobbying services.  Although requested, we were not provided the specific statutory authorization for the Authority to contract and make payments for lobbying services.

Finding No. 12:  The Authority expended approximately $809,500 for outsourced communication services without performing a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether it was more cost effective to use existing staff or hire additional staff.

Finding No. 13:  Contrary to Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, the Authority’s minutes indicated appointment of a Temporary Interim Executive Director that was also the Vice President of a corporation with which the Authority had an ongoing contract.

The Authority's response is included in the audit report as Appendix A.