 |
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
Report No. 2004-40
May 26, 2004
St. Louis Election Board could save thousands in cell phone costs and increase the accuracy of the voter registration files
In response to the extensive problems in St. Louis during the November 2000 election, this audit evaluated policies and management practices of the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners (BEC) in conducting elections and voter registration, and monitoring campaign finance reporting. The audit work covered three fiscal years (2001-2003) and determined if the board�s policies followed the law. In responding to the audit, the BEC agreed with all recommendations and has already implemented or begun to implement them.
Board could have saved $140,000 in cell phone costs
The BEC began issuing cell phones to election judges in 1999 and racked up nearly $180,000 in charges over three fiscal years. But when the BEC did not track the phones, more than 100 ended up lost or stolen and the board incurred thousands of additional charges. A police investigation found the BEC�s poor-record keeping made it impossible to tell who had the phones. In addition, auditors found the cell phone vendor overcharged the BEC by $45,800 in trying to settle a $317,000 outstanding bill. Overall auditors found several concerns with the cell phones including: (See page 5)
Voter files included deceased persons, Illinois residents, and felons
The BEC registers St. Louis voters and maintains the voter registration data. There were 249,346 voters as of April 2003 (194,060 were active voters and 55,286 were inactive voters). Auditors ran various computer matches to check the background of voters and found more than 24,000 questionable voters including: deceased persons, convicted felons, Illinois residents, voters who listed a city vacant lot as their addresses, and voters registered in other Missouri counties. Such computer matches can improve the integrity of the voter files and help St. Louis decrease its percentage of inactive voters (22 percent), which is nearly twice the national and statewide 12 percent average. (See page 10)
Campaign finance reporting requirements not always followed
The BEC failed to monitor campaign finance issues, which included ensuring candidates and political action committees complied with reporting requirements. The BEC appeared to be unaware of several of the requirements. Because the BEC did not track compliance with campaign finance reporting, the BEC could not determine if candidates complied with the campaign finance requirements. Additionally, the BEC did not assess late filing fees. (See page 17)
Board did not bill or refund election costs on time
The BEC estimates election costs, submits invoices of the estimated costs to the political subdivisions, calculates actual election costs, makes refunds, and requests additional payments. But the BEC failed to comply with at least one of the timing requirements in each of the 10 elections billed to other political subdivisions and failed to issue refunds timely in 7 of 7 instances when a refund was due. (See page 21)
Minimum required number of judges not always present at elections
The BEC failed to ensure the statutory minimum number of election judges, who should represent each major political party equally, worked precinct tables during the three most recent elections. Auditors found the board should consider redrawing the precinct boundaries to reduce the number of precincts and decrease city-wide election costs. In addition, consolidating precincts could significantly reduce the number of voting machines and total cost of a new voting system when the BEC replaces the punch card system now in use. (See page 23)
Board did not bid all purchases and properly monitor all expenditures
The BEC failed to seek bids or retain bidding documentation for many purchases. Auditors noted the BEC failed to bid or retain bidding documentation on 9 of 19 purchases totaling $23,225. Each purchase exceeded $1,000. In addition, the BEC paid $1,900 for food and drinks, including alcoholic beverages, for a reception to welcome new commissioners. This expenditure does not appear necessary or essential to the operation of the BEC. Also, the audit noted at least two payments authorized by the board that exceeded existing contract rates. (See page 26)
