Comptroller audits N. Bellmore Fire District

New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli recently released an audit of the North Bellmore Fire District. The district received a handful of recommendations for changes in its accounting.

The audit’s objective was to “assess whether district officials had established adequate internal controls over selected financial operations for the period January 1, 2009, to January 31, 2010.”

The audit found North Bellmore at fault for failing to segregate the superintendent’s duties and for not having proper controls in place. “As a result, the superintendent processed cash disbursements, prepared bank reconciliation, wire transfers, and employee time entries without oversight,” the audit report stated. The auditors made the following recommendations to avoid similar problems in the future:

n Bank statements and reconciliations should be reviewed by someone independent of the cash disbursement process. Differences or unusual items should be investigated.

n Wire transfers should be approved by someone other than the individual who initiated the transfer.

n Payroll should be certified by someone independent of the payroll process.

The audit also took issue with North Bellmore’s procurement procedures for goods and services. The audit noted that the fire district’s policy for hiring professional services was vague and undefined. Under current policy, the Board of Commissioners has the power to decide if seeking other quotes for services and goods would benefit the fire district; the audit found that the board rarely sought competitive figures for comparison.

The audit recommended a better-defined process for obtaining necessary goods and services.

The audit found that fire district did not seek quotes for five of eight payments totaling $15,911. A vendor was paid $8,125 to repair an engine on one of the district’s trucks without obtaining any comparables. By not following protocol to obtain quotes, known as requests for proposals, the audit report stated that it “increases the possibility that the district may have paid more for goods and services, which may have resulted in unnecessary costs to district taxpayers.”