The results of the latest county audit, ending June 30, 2011, didn’t look very good at its face value. The six-page audit released by State Auditor Adam Edelen noted several problem areas, most in the area of bookkeeping practices at the county and jail levels.

The audit report and its comments has been troubling to the Clinton County Fiscal Court since it was released a few weeks ago and has also been discussed at fiscal court meetings.

The audit period, however, ended some nine months ago and apparently officials–especially those involved in the financial aspects of county goverment–have been taking steps to implement programs and following recommendations that were made by auditors, hoping to correct most of the deficiencies found.

Also, they noted some items in the audit, due to the county’s size and lack of employees, isn’t feasible and the county will always be writtene up in those situations.

The audit included the financial operations of the Clinton County Jail as well, although the jail is somewhat a separate entity, being an elected constitutional office.

During an interview last week, Clinton County Judge/Executive Lyle Huff, Jailer Gene Ferrill, County Treasurer Dallas Sidwell and Finance Officer Tuesday Davis discussed the recent audit findings, including why the occurrences were listed as deficiencies by auditors and some steps that are (and have been) taken to correct the problems.

A few of the faults listed in the report were addressed to a certain extent by the local officials, and some during the court meeting held last week when magistrates posed questions and concerns about the audit.

Director of Emergency Services Lonnie Scott told the court at that time that proposals were actually taken on the heart monitors the audit had cited as not being bid. However, only three out-of-state firms offered the equipment, thus there was no formal bid opening that was written down in court minutes when they were purchased.

Jailer Gene Ferrill, when addressed on the submission of sales tax reports, said that prior to the audit year, the jail had not been required to a sales tax report. He added, however, that since then, as noted in his response to the auditor’s recommendations, that has now been corrected.

Ferrill further noted that even though there were red flags listed in an audit, the reason for auditors doing their job was to show you what you were doing wrong so you can correct the mistakes in the future.

As far as some internal control problems, such as with time cards and reports, Davis noted that some comp time had been used by employees but simply not written down as such as an example of some of the discrepancies found in reporting amount of hours worked, and overtime vs. regular hours.

A new swap-card system is now in place in keeping up with employee time and records.

The officials also noted that with the county’s budget the way it is, a lot of part-time employees have to be used and it makes it harder to keep up with employees’ pay, withholdings, etc. However, the new computer program system that was put in place last September, has solved a lot of the problems associated with paper record keeping.

Davis also noted that the only withholdings now from any employees’ check is for health insurance or any court ordered withholding.

County Treasurer Dallas Sidwell said that on the accounts receivable side, the court has people to receive, open and list claims and bills, etc. and it eventually gets down to the treasurer. State statute, he added, says the County Treasurer has to receive all funds.

He further noted that small counties, including Clinton–not only fiscal courts but fee offices as well–usually get wrote up for lack of segregation of power simply because they do not have enough staff to handle all the separate duties involved.

All of the officials who discussed the audit also agreed that some of the findings listed in the audit began being corrected even while the auditors were still on site, at both the county and jail operations level.

Judge Huff said as far as the exit audit team, which apparently reviews the audit once complete and can’t be discussed until it’s published, one of the members is made up from the fiscal court and he had appointed Magistrate Patty Guinn because she was the newest member on the court when the audit was taken.

The judge/executive, both during the court meeting discussion and afterward, took responsibility for having the audit taken, saying he wanted to see where the county stood.

He further noted, however, that due to the thorough nature of the document and listing of several problem areas that were published, “sometimes you get what you ask for,” in referring his request to the state that the audit be compiled.

The Kentucky Auditor of Public Accounts is required by Kentucky law to audit each fiscal court in the state, on a yearly basis, in addition to the offices of County Clerk and the Sheriff in each county.

It is up to the Auditor of Public Accounts as to whether the audit is actually conducted by staff members from the Auditor’s office, or by independent audit firms selected by the state auditor.

When asked to clarify in a later interview, Huff explained, that his intended statement of being responsible for the audit of the fiscal court being made, was that he had requested that the audit be performed by staff members of the Auditor of Public Accounts office.

He added that with the audit being conducted during an election year, he wanted to insure that the audits were being made at the highest level of performance possible and he felt that audits conducted by staff members from the Public Auditor’s office would best achieve that goal.

Although there have apparently been several corrections and changes made both during and since the audit was taken, there will apparently always be some instances where auditors will find discrepancies somewhere, such as in the segregation of duties for lack of staffing.

Judge Huff went on to commend Sidwell and Davis for the work they perform on a daily basis and concluded that the audit was done to help improve the quality of services provided by the county to the taxpayers.