Report No. 2008-20
March 2008
Complete Audit Report

The following report is our audit of the Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle and Drivers License Processes.

The Department of Revenue's practice of allowing contract agents to use validation systems other than the Titling and Registration Intranet Processing System (TRIPS) could result in the misappropriation of funds that may not be detected on a timely basis or at all by the department. In addition, there is no supervisory review or approval required before manual voids and overrides are made to daily accounting reports. In addition, documentation is not always available to demonstrate that manual voids and overrides are reviewed by field coordinators. Failure to properly supervise and monitor accounting report manual voids and overrides increases the possibility that misappropriation of funds will not be detected on a timely basis.

The DMV Academy's (DMVA) field coordinators do not always adequately document procedures performed during visits to contract offices, and reports prepared by field coordinators have not been consistently reviewed for over a year. In addition, the department does not have a reliable method to ensure the local sales tax rate assessed when titling motor vehicles is always accurate.

The TRIPS Miscellaneous Accounting inventory posting function provides the opportunity for misappropriation of certain motor vehicle inventory transactions. There is currently no function in the TRIPS that will reconcile the related posted inventory to the monies validated by the Miscellaneous Accounting function to ensure all inventory transactions are properly posted and that all inventory transactions posted are valid. Additionally, it does not appear some contract offices are performing reconciliations of semi-annual physical inventories to perpetual inventory records, as required by DMVA policy and the contract agent agreement.

The department does not always solicit proposals for selection of contract agents in the state's motor vehicle and drivers licensing offices. Between September 2006 and November 2007 proposals were solicited for the selection of three contract agents; however, during the same time period six contract agents were appointed without soliciting proposals. Department management indicated that there was no documentation (either paper or electronic) supporting the decision to appoint agents without soliciting proposals, or the actual selection of the appointed contract agents. Also, the department does not have a policy which establishes minimum requirements for contract agents, including experience and educational; however, experience was included in the evaluation criteria of the proposals.

Complete Audit Report
Missouri State Auditor's Office
moaudit@auditor.mo.gov