 |
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
Report No. 2005-48
July 2005
The following problems were discovered as a result of an audit conducted by our office of the Maplewood-Richmond Heights School District.
The Maplewood-Richmond Heights school district does not have a formal written policy on the appropriate use of the district credit cards. Charges totaling $211,572 were made on the district's five credit cards from July 2003 to December 2004. While purchases charged to the district credit card were primarily for travel, they also included miscellaneous items for the school including furniture, artwork, and landscaping purchase. In addition, the district paid approximately $1,259 from July 2003 to December 2004 in sales tax on purchases made on the district credit cards.
Although the district requires the purpose of the meeting and individuals present be noted on meal receipts, we noted instances where this information was not provided. Local meals, some for more than one person, were paid by the district with no explanation of the business purpose or the reason why a meal was necessary and the individuals covered by the amount paid.
The district paid $9,220 for the creation of a butterfly mobile for the middle school. Of this cost, $1,500 was paid to the art teacher supervising the project as a stipend and the remaining $7,720 was paid to a local artist who worked with the students in creating the mobile. The district did not have a signed written contract for this work, and although there was a written proposal from the artist detailing the work to be done, the estimated cost was only $5,520. The bill for the project only indicated the final total cost and there was nothing to support the increase in the amount from the original proposal.
The district's tuition reimbursement policy allows for reimbursement of 50 percent of actual tuition costs up to $1,000 per year. An administrative employee was paid $17,849 for tuition for eight correspondence classes from July 2003 to December 2004 at Syracuse University in New York. Although the Board approved providing tuition support for the employee, they did not approve a total amount to be paid or document why it was necessary to attend that university.
The district has implemented a student activity program called Women Who Look Ahead. A budget was not prepared for this program and the district spent more than the donations received.
Some travel related professional development expenses appear questionable. The district's professional development policy does not specify who is permitted to attend professional development trips, the number of trips allowed per year, or which trips are required or recommended for various staff positions. During the year ended June 30, 2004, over 40 employees of the district attended seven different out of state conferences, with at least three employees attending more than one out of state trip during the year. For example, during November 2003, the district incurred expenses exceeding $14,000 for ten employees to attend a three day professional development conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. Also during November 2003, six district employees, including one employee who also attended the conference in Las Vegas, attended a professional development conference in Dallas, Texas at a total cost of $4,782.
The district uses a travel advance process in which the employee receives prior approval for a trip and is given an advance of up to 80 percent of anticipated meal and incidental expenses prior to their departure. We noted several cash advances exceeded the expenses actually incurred by the employees and reimbursements to the district were not made in a timely manner. It appears the estimates used to determine the advance amount were excessive.
Although state law does not require a more comprehensive bid policy for school districts, Maplewood-Richmond Heights current bidding procedures could be made more effective by adopting a policy with a lower dollar amount. For example, the district paid $24,663 for landscaping plants and related purchases for the new elementary schools which were not bid. Additionally, the district purchased furniture exceeding $11,000 for the high school study hall and $8,300 for the teachers' lounge and other school areas. These items were not bid and some of the items purchased appeared excessive in price. Although the district indicated they compared the prices they paid for the plants to the price listing on the original bid and compared the furniture to other vendors, there was no documentation of this being performed.
The district did not adequately monitor the progress of the middle school construction project and change orders were made without district approval. Change orders totaling $395,000 were made, however, the district agreed to pay for only $248,764 and disputed the remaining amount because the contractor made the changes without proper authorization.
The district did not maintain adequate records of disposed property when it closed two schools. The district had no record indicating what property was at these schools and what was disposed of at the surplus sale.
The audit report also includes some other matters related to budgetary procedures and financial reporting, general fixed assets records and procedures, and cellular telephones upon which the school district should consider and take appropriate corrective action.
