Audit Report On The Financial And Operating Practices Of The 12 Manhattan Community Boards

This audit determined whether the 12 Manhattan Community Boards are complying with applicable payroll, timekeeping, purchasing, and inventory procedures, as set forth in the Office of Payroll Administration policies and procedures, the Procurement Policy Board Rules (PPB Rules), the New York City Comptroller’s Internal Control and Accountability Directives, and the Department of Investigation’s Standards for Inventory Control and Management. The scope of this audit covered the period July 2003 through December 2004.

Audit Findings and Conclusions

While the 12 Boards generally adhered to some of the requirements of the Office of Payroll Administration policies and procedures, the PPB Rules, and the New York City Comptroller’s Internal Control and Accountability Directives with respect to payroll, timekeeping, and purchasing, we found that, overall, there were deficiencies regarding their general compliance with those requirements.

Regarding the areas of adherence, we found that the Boards ensured that all employees are bona fide; accurately paid employees upon separation from City service; generally did not permit employees to carry compensatory time beyond the 120-day limit; and generally ensured that employee leave use and accrual were accurately recorded.

However, we found that the Boards did not adhere to a number of requirements specified in the above-mentioned rules and regulations. These findings of noncompliance included the following areas: purchasing (e.g., payments not supported by invoices, employee reimbursements not properly approved, Imprest Fund rules not followed, inappropriate use of miscellaneous vouchers); inventory (e.g., some items not included in inventory list, some items on list not found, items lacking inventory tags); timekeeping (e.g., employee weekly time reports not reconciled with daily attendance records); and personnel (some employees paid below the minimum or above the maximum salary for their titles).

It should be noted that the degree of noncompliance varied among the Boards. Certain findings were more pervasive at some Boards than at others. Additionally, for each Board there were varying levels of noncompliance among the findings relevant to that Board. Based on our discussions with the District Managers of the various Boards throughout the borough, one of the key factors contributing to weaknesses we identified at some of the Boards was the managers’ stated unfamiliarity with proper City procedures.

Audit Recommendations

To address these issues, we make one recommendation to the Manhattan Borough President’s Office and 21 recommendations to those Boards that had weaknesses found during the audit.