 |
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
August 16, 1999
Report No. 99-54
The following findings are a result of an audit conducted by our office in response to the request of petitioners from the Columbia 93 School District, in Boone County, Missouri. The Yellow Sheet points out those findings the State Auditor found particularly noteworthy.
The school district does not always solicit bids or keep bid documentation for major purchases. While district employees indicated that in some instances bids were solicited by phone or by direct contact with vendors, documentation was not kept for some purchases.
The following are examples of expenditures the district made but could not provide bid documentation:
| Item | Cost |
| Public Relations Services | $60,622 |
| 1998 Jeep Sport Cherokee | $20,957 |
| Laptop Computers | $11,151 |
The district has used the same architectural firm for construction projects for 17 years. Although the district selected the firm through a formal selection process, the district has continued to renew the contract with this firm without periodically conducting a selection process.
The district uses various law firms for its legal services. For two of these firms, the district did not receive written price quotes or enter into a written agreement for these services and, for the past three years, the district has simply renewed its contract for audit services, rather than rebid the contract.
The school district contributes $5,000 each year to the Boone County Teachers Credit Union to assist with its costs of serving the district's teachers. In addition, the district provides services to the credit union on a reimbursement basis, such as payroll and purchasing of supplies. There is no written agreement between the credit union and the school district outlining the terms of this arrangement and specifying the services the district is to receive.
Purchase orders for food supplies are not issued and approved prior to placing orders.
The transportation contract has not been bid since 1979. Prior to contracting transportation services, the district owned and operated its own transportation system. Since changing to a contracted bus system, the district has not formally evaluated the costs and benefits of owning its system versus contracting for the services.
Adequate procedures are not in place to monitor transportation costs. Our review noted several routes in which the number of riders assigned to the buses and the number of actual riders on the count day were significantly lower than bus capacities.
While the district has begun the process of developing procedures to review and monitor bus routes, the district should continue this process to ensure all bus routes are operating efficiently. Specific routes with low ridership should be reviewed and investigated to identify any areas where costs can be reduced such as decreasing the size of the bus.
The school district operates a copy center which provides various copying and printing services to the district as well as to school related organizations such as the Parent Teacher Association (PTA). The copy center operates on a cost recovery basis and the various departments and organizations are charged based on the type and volume of services received. We recommend the School Board perform an analysis of all costs associated with the copy center and ensure the rates charged cover all operating costs.
Various schools and offices within the district maintain petty cash funds ranging from $100 to $2,500. Last year these funds totaled approximately $128,500. We found several instances in which petty cash reconciliations had not been performed and submitted to the business office. As a result, there was no documentation supporting the petty cash balance. Also, staff in the district's business office indicate they perform annual year-end cash counts of the petty cash funds; however, these cash counts are not performed on a random basis nor are they documented.
