Audit Report on Controls over Payroll, Personnel, and Purchasing at the 14 Queens Community Boards

Audit Impact

Summary of Findings

The auditors determined that controls over payroll, personnel, and purchasing operations vary by Community Board, as does compliance with applicable rules and regulations. Although many of the Queens Community Boards demonstrated awareness of City rules and regulations, the auditors found that 11 of the 14 Community Boards in the borough had at least one problem. These issues were generally related to excess annual leave accruals and payroll and invoicing procedures.

Overall, Community Boards 5, 8, and 9 had the best results, with no reportable issues. Community Boards 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 14 had the next best results, with only one reportable issue each. Community Boards 1, 3, and 7 had two issues each, followed by Community Board 13 with three reportable issues and Community Board 12 with four reportable issues.

Regarding payroll and personnel operations, the auditors found that the Community Boards lacked controls for the monitoring of excess annual leave. As a result, seven District Managers (at Community Boards 1,3, 6, 7, 10, 12,  and 13) had annual leave balances exceeding the two-year maximum allowance for managerial staff, as of November 25, 2024. Per Personnel Order 88/5, Leave Regulations for Management Employees, the limit for the payment of annual leave upon separation from service is two years, unless there is authorization from the agency head to carry over excess annual leave. Without authorization, the excess annual leave is to be transferred to sick leave. These excess leave balances were not converted to sick leave, as required, and authorizations were not consistently granted to carry over the leave. One District Manager accumulated over 1,600 hours in excess leave. In addition, Community Boards 4 and 9 each had non-managerial staff who well exceeded their two-year maximum annual leave accrual limit of 378 hours.

Excess annual leave for staff and potential lump sum payments to managerial staff upon separation from service could significantly impact the budgets and staffing of these Community Boards. Auditors estimated the potential lump sum payments for the District Managers and the impact of excess annual leave on lump sum payments. The results show that even when excess annual leave is converted to sick leave, the total pay-out amounts for the District Managers would range today from over $27,000 to $66,000 each, and cumulatively total over $293,000 for Queens’ CBs. The potential impact on each CB’s budget could be significant, as detailed below.

The audit also found that half of the Community Board Chairpersons (1,2, 3, 4, 7, 11, and 12) did not consistently approve their District Managers’ timesheets in a timely manner, if at all.

Regarding purchasing matters, the auditors’ review of sampled micro-purchases totaling $177,791 found that the Community Boards are generally procuring goods and services for legitimate business purposes. No procurement issues were identified at 11 of the Community Boards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11).

However, deficiencies in invoicing procedures were found at the three other Boards. Specifically, Community Board 13 did not provide auditors with 11 vendor invoices, amounting to 33% of the sampled payments and totaling $12,649.24. Without invoices, payments were not fully supported and there is increased risk that payments were made for goods and services that were never received or were not used for legitimate business purposes.

In addition, Community Boards 12 and 14 batched multiple invoices when making payments without recording all invoice numbers in FMS, increasing the risk of double payments and difficulties in researching payment issues.

These issues are discussed in greater detail below.

Intended Benefits

This audit and its recommendations are intended to assist the 14 Queens Community Boards to enhance their operations, promote compliance with City rules and regulations, and mitigate risk associated with the payroll, personnel, and purchasing functions.

Introduction

Background

New York City is divided into 59 community districts, including 12 in the Bronx, 18 in Brooklyn, 12 in Manhattan, 14 in Queens, and three in Staten Island. Each district is served by a separate Community Board—a local representative advisory body authorized by the New York City Charter to advocate for the welfare of the community district, its residents, and stakeholders. Each Community Board participates in long-term community planning; vetting and making recommendations on land use and zoning proposals, applications for liquor licenses, sidewalk cafes, street fairs, and street closings; assessing community needs; and ensuring the proper delivery of municipal services.[1]

Each Community Board has up to 50 unsalaried volunteer members, half of whom are appointed by the Borough President, half from nominations by City Council Members representing the community district. Board members serve staggered two-year terms and must reside, work, or have significant interests in their districts. Several City agencies are responsible for assisting the Community Boards in fulfilling their overall responsibilities, including their respective Borough President’s Office, the Civic Engagement Commission, and the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit.

The business operations of each Community Board are funded through the City budget. Staff salaries and benefits are covered by the Personal Services (PS) budget, while operating expenses—such as supplies, equipment, and rental costs—are funded through the Other Than Personal Services (OTPS) budget. As such, each Community Board must ensure proper use of its allocated funds in accordance with City rules, regulations, fiscal policy and other applicable guidance.

Each Community Board employs a District Manager (DM) who reports directly to the Community Board’s Chairperson and interacts with Board members, community residents and businesses, government agencies, and local elected officials. DMs manage the daily operation of the district office and supervise a small administrative staff. They attend monthly Borough Service, Borough Board, and committee meetings. DMs also receive and process constituent complaints, vet land use and zoning issues, process permits for block parties and street fairs, coordinate neighborhood cleanup programs, and perform other duties as assigned by the Community Board.

Each Community Board operates independently and is responsible for managing its own business functions in compliance with requirements of the City Charter, relevant City and State rules and regulations, and the Community Board’s By-Laws. However, the Borough Presidents are responsible for providing technical assistance and training to the members of Community Boards within their boroughs.[2] All Community Boards use various Citywide computer systems, including the Financial Management System (FMS) and the CityTime timekeeping system to carry out their payroll, personnel, and purchasing functions.^{[3] [4]}

Objective

The objective of this audit was to determine whether the 14 Queens Community Boards maintained adequate controls over their payroll, personnel, and purchasing functions in compliance with applicable City rules, regulations, and official guidance.

Discussion of Audit Results with Queens Community Boards

The matters covered in this report were discussed with officials of the 14 Queens Community Boards during and at the conclusion of this audit. An Exit Conference Summary was sent to the 14 Queens Community Boards and discussed with Queens Community Board officials at an exit conference held on January 3, 2025. On February 7, 2025, we submitted a Draft Report to the Queens Community Boards with a request for written comments. We received written responses from 12 of the 14 Queens Community Boards (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14) between February 24 and 27, 2025. We did not receive written responses from Community Boards 4 and 13.

Many of the Community Boards did not directly address the recommendations, however, their comments implied a general sense of agreement. For example, some Community Boards indicated that that they would work toward implementing the recommendations to the best of their ability or will comply with all requirements. (Please see Appendix III for a summary of the Community Board responses.)

The 12 Queens Community Boards’ responses have been fully considered and, where relevant, changes and comments have been added to this report.

Appendix III summarizes the 12 Community Board responses. The full text of each of the 12 Queens Community Boards’ responses are included as an addendum to this report.

Detailed Findings

Weaknesses in Payroll Functions

Inadequate Monitoring of Leave Accruals Has Significant Fiscal Consequences

Personnel Order No. 88/5, Leave Regulations for Management Employees, allows for a maximum accumulation of two-years’ worth of annual leave accruals to be carried over. Any leave that exceeds the maximum of two years must be converted to sick leave, unless the agency head authorizes the carryover of excess annual leave. Per the City’s Leave Regulations for Employees Who are Under the Career and Salary Plan, these requirements are the same for non-managerial staff. For both managerial and non-managerial staff, the annual leave limit can range from 15 days to 27 days, based on the employees’ total years of City service.

The Community Boards lacked controls and procedures for monitoring annual leave usage. Seven District Managers had annual leave balances exceeding the two-year maximum allowance based on their accrual rate, as of November 25, 2024. These excess leave balances were not converted to sick leave as required, even though carryover of excess leave was not authorized for all DMs. Carryover authorization letters were given to the DMs of Community Boards 1, 3, and 10 for 2022 and 2023. Also, a carryover authorization letter was provided for the new DM of Community Board 6 for 2024.[5] However, a carryover authorization letter was not provided for the former DM of Community Board 6 for 2022.[6] Additionally, no carryover authorization letters were provided by the other three Community Boards (7, 12, and 13) for 2022 and 2023.

Limits on annual leave accruals help maintain operational efficiency by preventing excessive accumulation of unused time, which could disrupt operations if key or numerous employees were to take extended leave. These caps also address budgetary concerns, as a large balance of unused leave represents a significant financial liability for the City, since excess hours must be paid out if an employee were to leave City service. These limits are especially important for Community Boards that have small budgets, since these liabilities can prevent Community Boards from hiring replacements without a budget increase.

The auditors found that, as of November 25, 2024, seven of the Community Board DMs had annual leave balances exceeding the two-year maximum allowance based on their accrual rate. As shown in Table I, the DM at Queens Community Board 3 was carrying over 230 days of excess annual leave, while the DM at Community Board 10 was carrying over 107 days. Three DMs greatly exceeded the limit, accruing over 1,000 hours of leave, with one accruing almost 2,000 hours.

Table I: Queens Community Board Employees with Current Annual Leave Balances Exceeding Maximum Two-Year Accrual Limit

*The leave year for managerial employees is January to December and the maximum number of leave days managerial employees can accrue is based on their total years of City service.

In addition, non-managerial staff members at Community Boards 4 and 9 are also exceeding their maximum accrual limit.[7] Specifically, as of November 8, 2024, a Community Coordinator at Community Board 4 had an annual leave balance of 589.75 hours, exceeding the 378-hour limit by 211.75 hours (30.3 days). A Community Assistant at Community Board 9 had an annual leave balance of 466.75 hours, exceeding the limit by 88.75 hours (12.7 days). Auditors also determined that three additional non-managerial staff—one each at Community Boards 2, 3, and 11—had annual leave balances that nominally exceeded the 378 hours by 9.75 hours (1.4 days) or less.

The annual leave accrual period for non-managerial employees runs from April 1 to March 31. As such, these employees may not have annual leave balances exceeding the limit at the end of the leave year. However, when non-managerial staff separate from City service, they are placed on terminal leave to exhaust their annual leave balances and are paid over a period of time for half of their sick leave balance. In these situations, Community Boards’ staffing and budgets can be affected by these excess leave balances, and they may be prevented from replacing staff until all leave time has been paid out. Because of this, Community Boards need to properly monitor staff annual leave balances.

The Community Boards are responsible for monitoring their employee leave balances and taking proper steps to address those employees with high balances. However, the Community Boards were lacking policies and procedures regarding monitoring excess leave balances. Monitoring leave balances helps prevent excessive leave accumulation, which can impact staffing and productivity. It also encourages employees to take their earned leave, promoting work-life balance and overall well-being. By regulating leave carryover, the City can better forecast and manage recognized liabilities associated with unused employee leave balances in the City’s annual financial statement.

Fiscal Effects of Excess Annual Leave

As explained earlier, Personnel Order 88/5 allows managers to receive lump sum payments upon separation from service. This includes payment for current annual and sick leave and vested annual and sick leave, subject to certain requirements and limitations. Without authorization to carry over annual leave beyond the limit of two-years of accrual, the excess leave is automatically converted to sick leave,  which is paid at one-third the balance when calculating lump sum payments.[8]

To determine the estimated impact of excess annual leave on lump sum payments, referring to the calculations detailed in Comptroller’s Directive 14, the auditors calculated the value of leave payments for the seven DMs noted above as if those managers had separated from employment on November 25, 2024 (the date the data was extracted). Auditors performed two calculations: (1) the estimated leave payment applying the two-year annual leave accrual limit, excluding the excess annual leave that would be converted to sick leave; and (2) the estimated leave payment applying the two-year annual leave accrual limit, including the excess annual leave that would be converted to sick leave.

As shown in Table II, pay out for excess annual leave converted to sick leave increases the total amount of lump sum payments by $60,622. For the DM of Community Board 3, the payment increases by over $29,000, and for the DM at Community Board 10, by over $13,000. For the DM at Community Board 3, the total leave payment (with excess annual leave converted to sick) totals 48% of the DM’s yearly salary and 27% of the Community Board’s adopted PS budget for FY2025; and for the DM at Community Board 10, the payout totals 31% of the DM’s yearly salary and 17% of the Community Board’s adopted PS budget for FY2025.

Table II: Estimated DM Lump Sum Payments with and without Excess Annual Leave Converted to Sick Leave

The difference in payment amounts shown in Table II demonstrates a need for better monitoring of employee leave balances—particularly managerial employees with excess annual leave balances. The impact is significant for each individual CB’s budget, even if holding DMs to the allowable limit and with conversations to sick leave.

If the accrual of even more leave is authorized, payouts can become greater. For example, if the DM at CB 3 was given authorization to carry over accrued excess annual leave, the DM could be paid for an additional 567 hours of annual leave at a rate of $54.55, for a total additional payment of approximately $30,930. If the DM at CB 10 was given authorization to carry over the excess annual leave, the DM could be paid for an additional 567 hours of annual leave at a rate of $53.05, for a total additional payment of approximately $30,079.

Special care should be taken when considering whether to grant authorization to a DM to carry over excess leave, as greater leave balances will increase lump sum payments at the time of separation and impose an even greater financial burden on a Community Board. Although DMs are required to handle many tasks and put in long hours on their job, they should be encouraged to use their annual leave to reduce the potential impact of future lump sum payments.

As stated previously, lump sum payments can significantly impact a Community Board’s financial position as they represent a huge one-time expense and liability. Consequently, a Community Board may need to reallocate funds from other budget areas to pay lump sum payments, which may cause a strain on funds for current and future periods, requiring it to forego or delay planned operating expenditures.

According to a newspaper article in The City, dated April 3, 2022, when the DM of Brooklyn Community Board 1 retired after 45 years, the Community Board was unable to hire a successor due to the DM’s leave payout.[9] The article indicated that a similar situation occurred when the DM of Brooklyn Community Board 18 retired in 2020 after 39 years of service.

District Manager Timesheets Not Consistently Approved

Comptroller’s Directives 1 and 13 require employee timesheets to be approved by the employee’s supervisor prior to submission for payroll processing. However, auditors determined that the Queens Community Board Chairpersons did not consistently approve their DMs’ timesheets on a timely basis.

All Queens Community Boards use CityTime—the timekeeping system used by most City agencies. All Community Board employees—including the DMs—are required to electronically log their daily arrival and departure times and submit leave requests on the platform. Supervisors are responsible for approving their subordinates’ weekly timesheets in CityTime; however, the DM’s direct supervisor, the Community Board Chairperson, serves on a voluntary basis, is not a City employee, and therefore does not have access to CityTime to approve the DM’s weekly timesheet.

To work around this limitation, the Queens Borough President’s Office (QBPO) and the 14 Queens Community Boards established procedures requiring DMs to submit their CityTime timesheets to their Chairperson either on paper or via email. The Chairperson then sends the signed timesheet or an email to the QBPO to confirm approval of the DM’s hours. Upon receipt, the employee designated by the Director of Administration at the QBPO approves the timesheet in CityTime on the Chairperson’s behalf.

To assess the Community Boards’ compliance with this workaround procedure, on November 3, 2023, auditors requested from the QBPO copies of approved DM timesheets and/or other documentation (i.e., emails) received that made note of the Chairperson’s approval of the DM timesheets for each of the 14 Queens Community Boards for three sampled pay weeks (November 8–12, 2021; May 23–27, 2022; and February 20–24, 2023). Based on documentation provided by the QBPO (and subsequently the Community Boards), auditors found that only seven of the 14 Community Boards (5,  6,  8,  9, 10, 13,  and 14) consistently followed the above procedures. The remaining seven Boards (1,  2,  3,  4,  7,  11,  and 12) did not, since timesheets were either not approved by the Chairperson or were not approved in a timely manner.

Table III below summarizes the results of the auditors’ review of 41 (98%) of the 42 requested DM timesheets for the three sampled pay weeks. One (2%) DM timesheet for Community Board 4 was not provided.

Table III: Summary Results of Review of 41 Sampled DM Timesheets

Note: Detailed results of the auditors’ review of DM timesheets for all 14 Queens Community Boards can be found in Appendix II.

Auditors noted that several DM timesheets had a print date of November 8, 2023,  five days after the auditors’ request. Some of those timesheets were signed by the Chairperson but were undated, some were dated as of the print date on the timesheet, while others were backdated.

Based on the auditors’ review of the 41 DM timesheets provided, 24 (59%) complied with the workaround procedure, meaning that the timesheets were signed and approved in a timely manner by the respective Chairpersons. Twenty-one of the 24 fully compliant DM timesheets were from seven Community Boards (5,  6,  8,  9,  10,  13,  and 14), which auditors found consistently followed the procedures. Specifically, the DM timesheets for the three sampled pay weeks for these seven Community Boards were all approved and signed by the Chairperson in a timely manner. The three other compliant DM timesheets represented one of the sampled weeks for each of Community Boards 1, 2 and 12.

The other 17 (41%) of the 41 DM timesheets received were from Queens Community Boards 1,  2,  3,  4,  7,  11,  and 12, and did not comply with procedures in the following ways:

• 11 had a print date of November 8, 2023—five days after they had been requested by the auditors (nine were signed by the respective Chairpersons and two were unsigned.)
• Four were signed by the Chairperson one or more months after the respective pay weeks.
• Two were unsigned by the respective Chairperson.

In 18 instances, the QBPO approved DM timesheets on the Chairperson’s behalf—and, subsequently, the processing of the weekly payroll—without evidence of the Chairpersons’ approval.

The Queens Community Board Chairs are responsible for verifying and approving the DMs’ timesheets and should ensure that procedures are consistently followed to prevent inaccuracies and foster accountability and integrity in the payroll process.

Weaknesses in Purchasing Controls

To determine whether micro-purchases made by the 14 Queens Community Boards were legitimate and complied with City rules, auditors sampled 70 payments totaling $177,790.69 for the period July 1, 2021 to February 28, 2023. (One payment could pay for one or more invoices.) No procurement issues were identified at 11 of the Community Boards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). However, as discussed below three Community Boards (12, 13, and 14) had noted deficiencies.

More than $12,000 in Purchases for Community Board 13 Not Fully Supported by Vendor Invoices

Procurement Policy Board Rules Section 3-08 c.1.ii defines micro-purchases as procurements of goods and services valued at $20,000 or less. Documentation for such purchases must identify the vendor, the goods or service purchased, and the amount paid.

According to Community Board 13, since the DM does not have support staff to prepare the payment requests, he serves as the payment requester in FMS and the QBPO approves the payments upon receiving copies of the vendor invoices. However, Community Board 13 did not provide auditors with a total of 11 vendor invoices totaling $12,649. Although Community Board 13 provided other requested documentation (such as copies or screenshots of FMS purchase orders, FMS payment requests, or vendor order confirmations), the DM did not explain why those invoices were not provided.

One likely explanation is Community Board 13’s lack of support staff—the DM is the sole staff member who is responsible for all operating functions with the support of the QBPO. Without adequate support staff, there is a greater likelihood of errors occurring and going undetected and uncorrected. Another factor may be that none of the Community Boards had written policies and procedures governing purchasing.

Without these invoices, auditors could not determine whether the payments were fully supported, whether goods or services were received as ordered, whether invoice calculations were accurate, whether sales tax was not charged or paid, and whether appropriate invoices were paid. The absence of invoices increases the risk that payments were made for goods and services that were never received or were not used for legitimate business purposes.

Lack of proper documentation weakens internal controls, and not having vendor invoices to support payment transactions can lead to inaccurate financial reporting, disputes with vendors, missed payment deadlines, or overpayments. This can also create opportunities for fraud or financial mismanagement.

Invoices Not Recorded in FMS

Comptroller’s Directive 1, Section 5.9, states, “Transactions should be promptly recorded to maintain their relevance and value to management in controlling operations and decision making. This applies to the entire process or life cycle of a transaction or event from the initiation and authorization through its final classification in the agency’s records. Sound control activities help ensure that all transactions are timely and accurately recorded.”

Agencies are required to accurately record all procurement transaction details in the City’s FMS accounting system. Once received, a vendor invoice—which serves as a formal request for payment for goods or services provided by a vendor, and details the unit price, total cost, and payment terms—should be recorded in FMS. Each invoice number should be properly logged in FMS to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the City’s financial records. Prior to payment, the corresponding documentation (e.g., vendor invoices, purchase orders, and receiving records for a specific order) should be compared and verified to ensure completeness and accuracy of the transaction.

Auditors found that Community Board 13 paid two vendors for monthly services based on the most current monthly billing statement at the time the payments were made. However, in addition to the current charges, the Community Board had unpaid open amounts due from prior months for both vendors, which were included in the payments.

Specifically, for one vendor, Community Board 13 paid a total of $1,085.71, representing the current charges of $224.32 and past due balances covering four prior months, totaling $861.39, for which invoices were not provided. Similarly, for the second vendor, the Board paid a total of $1,683.65, representing a current monthly charge of $281.63 and $1,402.02 for five monthly charges past due. In addition to not having the invoices to support the past due amounts, vendor invoice numbers for these unpaid monthly charges were not recorded in FMS.

Additionally, the auditors’ review found that Community Boards 12 and 14 grouped multiple invoices when making payments without properly recording invoice numbers in FMS. These improper groupings are explained in detail below.

Community Board 12:

• On June 14, 2022, paid $1,967.61 with one invoice number recorded in FMS despite four invoices being covered by the payment.
• On June 16, 2022, paid $13,729.40, which, according to FMS, covered two invoices: one for $826.82 and one for $12,902.58. Auditors found that the first payment of $826.82 covered one invoice, correctly recorded in FMS. The second payment of $12,902.58, however, covered eight separate invoices, with only one of the eight invoice numbers recorded. As a result, auditors found that Community Board 12 paid $826.82 for one invoice twice on the same payment. Auditors reviewed documentation provided by Community Board 12, after the Exit Conference, as proof that a credit for the double payment was received from the vendor. Although the documentation reflected a credit balance of $485.95 carried on monthly account statements from January 2023 through November 2023,  the documents did not clearly demonstrate that Community Board 12 fully recouped the $826.82 to address the double payment.
• On June 27, 2022, paid a vendor $3,185.22 with only one invoice number recorded in FMS, when the payment actually covered two invoices.

Community Board 14:

• On May 23, June 23, and September 28, 2022, made three payments totaling $9,172.29, covering 21 vendor invoices. However, only five of the 21 invoice numbers were recorded in FMS––the 16 remaining invoice numbers were not recorded.

Batching invoices for payments may be an easier method to process payments; however, it does not absolve agencies from the requirement that each invoice number should be properly logged in FMS to maintain the accuracy and completeness of the City’s financial records. There is also an increased risk of double payments occurring, as well as increased difficulties in researching payment issues that may arise with a vendor.

Recommendations

To address the abovementioned findings, the auditors propose that:

1. All Queens Community Board Chairpersons should:
   • encourage DMs and non-managerial staff to use their annual leave and reduce the amount of annual leave accruals to help reduce the potential impact on lump sum payments to staff when they separate from service;
   • where practicable, limit the authorizations for employees to carry over excess annual leave balances; and
   • ensure that DMs’ timesheets are reviewed and approved in a timely manner and promptly sent to the QBPO in accordance with the established procedure.

Queens Community Boards’ Responses: While not specifically responding to this recommendation, Community Boards 6, 7, 8, and 10 generally agreed with the recommendation. Community Boards 6 and 7 stated that they would work toward implementing the recommendation to the best of their ability. Community Board 8 indicated that it will continue to follow all guidelines, while Community Board 10 indicated it will comply with all requirements Community Boards must adhere to.

Community Boards 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11 partially agreed with the recommendation. Specifically, Community Board 1 partially agreed with two parts of the recommendation, stating that (1) the District Manager and staff are encouraged to use their time, and (2) the Chair has not approved the District Manager’s carryover of excess annual leave, but rather has required the conversion of excess annual leave to sick leave.

Community Board 11 partially agreed with two parts of the recommendation, stating that: (1) it will make sure that the District Manager continues to maintain an appropriate amount of annual leave, and (2) the Board Chair will approve the District Manager’s timesheets in a timely manner.

Further, Community Boards 3, 5, and 9 partially agreed with one part of the recommendation, indicating that they are taking steps to ensure that employees reduce accumulated annual leave time.

Community Boards 2, 12, and 14 did not directly address whether they agree with this recommendation in their response. However, regarding the DM timesheets, Community Boards 2 and 12 stated that they provided all the printed timesheets with the DM’s signature.

Community Boards 4 and 13 did not submit a written response to the draft audit report.

Auditor Comment: Since Community Boards 1, 3, 5, 9, and 11 only partially agreed with the recommendation, Community Boards 2, 12, and 14 did not directly address this recommendation in their respective responses, and Community Boards 4 and 13 did not respond to the audit, we encourage all the Boards to fully implement the recommendation.

With regard to the responses from Community Boards 2 and 12 regarding the sampled DM timesheets, the auditors do not dispute that the timesheets were submitted; however, as noted in the report, the timesheets were not always signed and approved in a timely manner.

2. All Queens Community Boards should:
   • actively monitor annual leave accruals and require employees with annual leave balances exceeding two-year maximums to obtain written authorization or convert excess annual leave to sick leave in accordance with City regulations;
   • ensure that vendor invoices are obtained for all purchases and that each invoice is reviewed and verified by the approver prior to payment; and
   • develop policies and procedures for monitoring and managing employee leave time and the procurement process in alignment with City rules and regulations.

Queens Community Boards’ Responses: While not specifically responding to this recommendation, Community Boards 6, 7, 8, and 10 generally agreed with the recommendation. Community Boards 6 and 7 stated that they would work toward implementing the recommendations to the best of their ability. Community Board 8 indicated that it will continue to follow all guidelines, while Community Board 10 indicated it will comply with all requirements to which Community Boards must adhere.

Community Boards 1, 5, and 11 partially agreed with one part of the recommendation. Specifically, Community Boards 1 and 5 indicated that they will continue to monitor employee leave balances and work to ensure that staff do not accrue annual leave above the two-year allowance. Community Board 11 stated that it will continue to input purchase orders and payment vouchers correctly. Further, while Community Board 8 stated that it will continue to follow all guidelines, it also indicated that it has devised a written purchasing guideline.

Community Boards 2, 3, 9, 12, and 14 did not directly address this recommendation in their response, and Community Boards 4 and 13 did not submit a written response to the draft audit report

Auditor Comment: Although Community Boards 1, 5, 8, and 11 did not fully address the recommendations, Community Boards 2, 3, 9, 12, and 14 did not directly address this recommendation in their respective responses, and Community Boards 4 and 13 did not respond to the audit, we encourage all the Boards to fully implement the recommendation.

3. Queens Community Board 12 should ensure that the $826.82 overpayment is fully recouped.

Queens Community Board 12 Response: Community Board 12 agreed with this recommendation.

4. Queens Community Boards 12, 13, and 14 should ensure that each paid invoice number is recorded in FMS.

Auditor Comment: Although Community Board 13 did not respond to the audit, we encourage the board to implement the recommendation.

5. Queens Community Board 13 should consider hiring support staff as needed to support the District Office’s operations.

Queens Community Board 13 Response: Community Board 13 did not submit a written response to the draft audit report.

Auditor Comment: Although Community Board 13 did not respond to the audit, we encourage the board to implement the recommendation.

Recommendations Follow-up

Follow-up will be conducted periodically to determine the implementation status of each recommendation contained in this report. Agency reported status updates are included in the Audit Recommendations Tracker available here: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/services/for-the-public/audit/audit-recommendations-tracker/

Scope and Methodology

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). GAGAS requires 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 objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions within the context of our audit objective(s). This audit was conducted in accordance with the audit responsibilities of the City Comptroller as set forth in Chapter 5, §93, of the New York City Charter.

The audit scope covered July 1, 2021 through March 15, 2023.  However, regarding employee leave balances and estimated lump sum payment, the scope was extended to November 25, 2024 to reflect more current data.

To gain an understanding of the operations and controls over payroll, personnel and purchasing functions at the 14 Queens Community Boards, auditors developed, distributed, and later reviewed the Community Boards’ responses to an internal control and information request questionnaire.  Auditors also met with officials from the QBPO to gain an understanding of the administrative support it provides to the 14 Queens Community Boards and to obtain an overview of the Community Boards’ general controls and procedures relevant to payroll, personnel and purchasing functions from the QBPO perspective.  Further, the auditors reviewed prior audit reports of the 14 Queens Community Boards conducted by the New York City Comptroller’s Office and, where applicable, noted findings and conditions in those audits that addressed matters relevant to this audit.

Auditors reviewed the 14 Queens Community Boards’ by-lawsas well as relevant provisions of applicable criteria, including:

• Comptroller’s Directive 1, Principles of Internal Control;
• Comptroller’s Directive 13, Payroll Procedures;
• Comptroller’s Directive 14, Leave Balance Payments;
• Comptroller’s Directive 24, Agency Purchasing Controls for Certain Non-Procurement Transactions Processed through the City of New York’s Financial Management System;
• DCAS Personnel Bulletins 420-3 and 420-4;
• Personnel Order 88/5, Leave Regulations for Management Employees
• City Leave Regulations for Employees Who are Under the Career and Salary Plan; and
• Procurement Policy Board Rules §13-08, Small Purchases; Section 3-08 c.1.ii MicroPurchases.

The auditors designed the following tests to ascertain the adequacy of the Queens Community Boards’ controls as well as their conformance with key provisions of audit criteria.

Auditors extracted FMS data for each of the 14 Queens Community Boards, detailing OTPS expenditures made by each between July 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023, then sorted the data by vendor, payment dates, amounts, and then analyzed to assess total expenditures and number of invoices paid, as recorded in FMS. Cumulatively, the auditors selected for review a judgmental sample of 70 (8%) out of 842 total payments made by all 14 Queens Community Boards for the audit test period, representing $177,791 (40%) of the total $440,927 OTPS expenditures. [10]  The sampled payments were selected primarily based on larger payment amounts, frequency of payments, type of vendor (independent contractor vs. company), and the goods or service provided (i.e., postage, water, consultant, office supplies, etc.).

Auditors requested and reviewed supporting documentation (FMS screen shots and invoices) from the 14 Queens Community Boards for the 70 sampled OTPS payments to assess compliance with applicable requirements and to obtain reasonable assurance that:

• adequate documentation (electronic and hardcopy) was maintained to support payments;
• there was evidence that goods or services were received;
• goods or services were appropriately invoiced;
• invoice extensions were accurate;
• payments were made to the correct vendor for the correct invoice;
• sales and excise taxes were properly excluded from payments; and
• expenditures were for legitimate and necessary business purposes.

To assess whether purchases were authorized and to verify that the requester and approver functions were segregated in the approval process, auditors obtained and reviewed FMS reports listing the approval workflow for all payment requests, including requester and approver User IDs and approval dates.

To evaluate the 14 Queens Community Boards’ controls over payroll and personnel functions, and compliance with applicable rules and regulations, auditors extracted data from the City Human Resource Management System (CHRMS) detailing the employee leave balance dates, service dates, salaries, etc., for the 14 Queens Community Boards, as of November 8, 2024.[11] Auditors reviewed the leave balances to determine whether staff had excess annual leave balances. To assess the value of potential lump sum payments for the DMs that had excess annual leave above the two-year annual limit, auditors obtained updated leave balance data as of November 25, 2024, and calculated what those DMs’ lump sum payments would be if they separated from City service as of that date. To show the impact of excess annual leave accruals, auditors also calculated what the lump sum payments would be without the excess annual leave that should be converted to sick leave.

Auditors determined whether the 14 Queens Community Boards paid their respective employees in line with their civil service titles. To do so, auditors reviewed each employee’s salary information in the City’s Payroll Management System (PMS) and compared them to the Department of Citywide Administrative Services’ (DCAS) wage tables for the Citywide Economic Agreement, effective October 26, 2019.[12]

On November 3, 2023, auditors requested from the QBPO emails, hardcopy memos, timesheets and/or other related communications received by the QBPO’s office from each of the 14 Queens Community Board chairpersons documenting their approval of their DMs’ weekly timesheet(s) and leave requests. According to QBPO, it will approve the processing of the DMs timesheet in CityTime on behalf of the Chairperson, upon receiving the approved timesheet. To determine whether timesheets were approved timely and submitted to the QBPO for approval in CityTime, auditors also requested PDFs of the 14 Queens Community Boards’ DMs approved timesheets for three judgmentally selected pay weeks: (1) November 8–12, 2021, (2) May 23–27, 2022, and (3) February 20–24, 2023.

The results of the above tests, while not projectable to their respective populations, provided a reasonable basis for assessing the 14 Queens Community Boards’ controls and compliance with rules and regulations applicable to procurement, payroll, and personnel functions.

This audit did not specifically evaluate the reliability and integrity of the computer-processed procurement data or payroll and personnel data obtained from the citywide computer systems discussed herein, as the City’s external auditors review these systems as part of their annual audit of the City’s financial statements.

Appendix I

Overview of Sample Selection of Payments for Each of the 14 Queens Community Boards for July 1, 2021 – February 28, 2023

Appendix II

Detailed Results of DM Timesheet Test

Appendix III

See attachment.

Addendum

See attachment.

---

Endnotes

[1] Chapter 70, section 2800 of the New York City Charter.

[2] Chapter 4, section 82.12 of the New York City Charter.

[3] FMS is the City’s automated platform of integrated applications used for recording, maintaining, and processing Citywide accounting, budgeting, vendor, and related functions. FMS is supported by Financial Information Services Agency (FISA), which permits authorized personnel access to FMS based on approval by each respective agency.

[4] CityTime is a secure, web-based application used by most City agencies to manage employee time and attendance. Employees log in securely to CityTime to record their work hours, request leave, submit timesheets for approval, and view leave balances.

[5] The District Manager for Queens Community Board 6, formerly in a non-managerial title of Community Coordinator, was promoted to this position effective July 1, 2024.

[6] The former District Manager for Queens Community Board 6 retired from the position in December 2023.

[7] Non-managerial staff with 15 or more years of service generally accrue 27 days (189 hours) of annual leave each year.

[8] According to Comptroller’s Directive 14, managers need more than 10 years of continuous service and a final balance of at least 60 current sick leave days to be eligible to be paid one-third of their current sick leave balance. All of the DMs referred to above met these requirements.

[9] Irizarry Aponte, Claudia, “Williamsburg Community Board Manager Cashes Out After 45 Years and a Free SUV.” The City, April 3, 2022. https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/10/03/williamsburg-community-board-gerald-esposito-retires-suv/#:~:text=Dealice%20Fuller%2C%20the%20chair%20of%20Brooklyn%20Community,%E2%80%94%20his%20last%20day%20on%20the%20job

[10] For audit purposes a sampling unit was defined as a payment document (EFT/Check Amount), which paid one or more vendor invoices.

[11] CHRMS is a data warehouse that contains records for City employees in PMS including job, budget, pay, leave, and more.

[12] PMS is the City’s automated system for processing municipal employees’ payroll and timekeeping records.