A state audit of Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) of Whitley County PVA Ronnie Moses’ Office has turned up no major issues, but it did note a handful of instances of non-compliance for the time period of July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.
The AUP by Kentucky Auditor of Public Accounts Allison Ball looked at 13 compliance procedures performed and the results of those procedures, which are called findings.
Only five of those findings had an instance of noncompliance with the criteria and each prompted a response by Moses, according to a report by Ball’s office.
• Compliance procedure – determine if the PVA has a receipts ledger, a disbursement ledger, and reconciles bank records to books each month. Re-perform the year-end (fiscal year) bank reconciliation (June 30, 2024), for all bank accounts to determine if amounts are accurate.
Finding – The PVA does not have receipt and disbursement ledgers for all bank accounts and does not reconcile bank records to books each month for all accounts. The June 30, 2024, bank reconciliation was not accurate. It was prepared as of July 15, 2024.
The PVA’s response was, “We just don’t have that many checks or write that many checks.”
• Compliance procedure – Select one month (July 2023 – June 2024) and review bank statement to determine if deposits were made weekly at a minimum or if receipts of $250 or more were deposited daily. Choose one week from month selected and determined if pre-numbered receipts were issued. Determine by inquiry of the PVA and scanning the receipts ledger if the PVA charges, issues receipts and deposits for all services provided.
Finding – Deposits were not made weekly at a minimum and receipts of $250 or more were not deposited daily. Pre-numbered receipts were not issued. PVA does not charge, does not issue receipts, and does not deposit for all services provided.
The PVA’s response was, “Must have overlooked it. Will do better in future.”
• Procedure – Judgmentally select 15 disbursements from PVA records and agree amounts to paid invoices or other supporting documentation and bank records. Determine if the disbursement is for official business. Inspect all credit card statements (if any) to determine if disbursements are for official business.
Finding – One of the selected disbursements did not agree to paid invoices or other supporting documentation and bank records. One disbursement could not be determined to be for official business as there was no original invoice. $84 of bank account disbursements and $98 of credit card disbursements were not for official business. The PVA should remit personal funds to repay these disbursements.
The PVA’s response was that an $84.07 deposited check dated Nov. 6, 2024, from Ronnie Moses was placed into the PVA account. It also noted that a receipt for $116.59 was found. In addition, a receipt dated June 26, 2023, for $115.59 was found. Items used at the office, including batteries, Mr. Clean and Clorox wipes totaled $17.34. This amount was subtracted from the total leaving $98.25, which was deposited on Dec. 4, 2024, into the PVA account.
Auditor’s reply: “According to the Department of Revenue’s list of allowable/unallowable items, things like refreshments provided to employees, including coffee, are non-allowable. $116 credit card disbursement was used to purchase several over-the-counter medicines, coffee, coffee creamer, sugar, plates, foam cups, utensils, batteries and disinfectant wipes. Based on further documentation and discussion, the $17 for batteries and disinfectant wipes are allowable, leaving $98 of unallowable expenses per audit finding.”
• Compliance procedure – Compare the PVA’s final budget to actual disbursements to determine if the PVA overspent in any account series.
Finding – Auditor compared budget to actual disbursements and determined the PVA overspent in the 100, 300 and 600 account series by $15,940, $9,460, and $850, respectively.
The PVA’s response, “Will be sure to file budget amendments in future.”
• Compliance procedure – Determine if the PVA’s office was closed any day other than the state’s approved holidays. If so, determine if the proper procedures and forms were completed.
Finding – The PVA did not follow the proper procedures and complete the appropriate form for the days the office was closed other than state approved holidays.
The PVA’s response was, “Closed when the courthouse is closed.”
No exceptions were found in the case of four procedures, such as confirming payments made by the city and fiscal court to the PVA, comparing capital outlay disbursements, and scanning vehicle lease agreements, personal service contracts, and professional contracts for cost schedules and comparing to actual payments.
A total of four of the procedures were not applicable to Moses’ office, such as whether the PVA has a change fund, which he doesn’t, and determining whether PVA’s office employees hired between July 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024, had completed the ethics certification form. No new employees were hired during that time period.
