Audit Report on the Compliance of the New York City Department of City Planning With Comptroller’s Directives Relating to Payroll and Timekeeping

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of City Planning (City Planning) has been in operation since 1938. Its principal goals are to encourage housing and economic development, improve the City’s quality of life and preserve its neighborhoods, and streamline the land-use regulatory process. The Department is responsible for the City’s physical and socioeconomic planning, including land-use and environmental reviews.

The Director of City Planning, who also serves as the Chair of the City Planning Commission, is responsible for overall planning, direction, and coordination of policy. The Director advises the Mayor, the Borough Presidents, and the City Council on all matters related to the development and improvement of the City.

City Planning headquarters are at 22 Reade Street, Manhattan. It also has an office in each of the other four boroughs, as well as a Transportation Unit at 2 Lafayette Street, Manhattan. According to the adopted budget for fiscal year 2001, City Planning’s budget totaled $16,719,219. Of this total, the Personal Services budget was $14,992,296 for 277 employees and the Other than Personal Services budget was $1,726,923.

The objective of this audit was to determine whether City Planning is in compliance with applicable Comptroller’s Directives relating to payroll and timekeeping.

The scope of this audit was Fiscal Year 2001 (July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001). We conducted our tests using payroll and timekeeping records from the third quarter (January 1–March 31, 2001) of the fiscal year. To gain an understanding of City Planning’s payroll and timekeeping processes, we interviewed City Planning officials and conducted a walk-through of its payroll and timekeeping operations. We also requested the written procedures City Planning follows in its payroll and timekeeping processes. We reviewed City Planning’s response to Comptroller’s Directive 1, Agency Evaluation of Internal Controls, regarding payroll and personnel management. In addition, we compared City Planning practices to Comptroller’s Directive 13, Payroll Procedures. Based on the information gathered and our understanding of City Planning’s procedures, we developed a detailed audit plan to determine whether City Planning complies with the Comptroller’s directives relating to Payroll and Timekeeping.

Our Audit Tests are discussed in detail on pages 2 and 3 of this report.

This audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS) and included tests of the records and other auditing procedures considered necessary. This audit was performed in accordance with the City Comptroller’s audit responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 5, § 93, of the New York City Charter.

City Planning has an adequate internal control system in place for its payroll and timekeeping functions. Specifically, City Planning ensured that:

• payroll changes were properly processed and recorded in PMS;
• jury duty service was properly recorded, and that it properly collected any jury duty pay its employees received;
• paychecks were distributed to the appropriate bona fide employees; and
• undistributed paychecks and payroll stubs were stored in a secure facility following payroll distribution.

However, we did find weaknesses in City Planning’s procedures. Some of the specific problems we found include that City Planning:

• lacks evidence that its payroll and timekeeping units properly review personnel changes;
• lacks evidence that PMS Employee Update and New Appointment Forms were approved;
• does not ensure supervisory approval of time sheets;
• does not properly record employees’ time in PMS; and
• did not require its employees to sign for direct-deposit earning statements.

The audit resulted in seven recommendations, all of which are listed below.

City Planning should ensure:

• that all pertinent information, such as last day worked and last day paid, is entered on the Personnel Change Form;
• that all units indicate their reviews of the changes by properly signing the Personnel Change Form;
• that signatures indicating proper approval appear on all PMS Employee Update and PMS New Appointment forms;
• that all time sheets are reviewed and signed by the supervisors;
• that the work unit timekeeper and the work unit supervisor review and authorize the time recorded on the time sheets and the ETRs;
• that the central timekeeping unit reviews and verifies the accuracy of the time recorded in PMS; and
• should continue to ensure that its employees sign for their payroll stubs.

The matters covered in this report were discussed with officials from City Planning during and at the conclusion of this audit. A preliminary draft report was sent to City Planning officials and discussed at an exit conference on May 6, 2002. On May 9, 2002, we submitted a draft report to City Planning officials with a request for comments. We received a written response from City Planning on May 22, 2002. City Planning agreed with the audit’s recommendations, stating that "steps will be taken to implement each of the auditor’s recommendations."