Laserfiche WebLink
Audit Results <br />While most transactions reviewed were generally appropriate, <br />some purchases did not follow county policy, had a questionable <br />public purpose, and may have violated state law. <br />The purpose of the County's Purchasing Card (pCard) Program is to establish an efficient, cost- <br />effective method of purchasing and paying for small -dollar transactions. County policies and <br />other documents define the pCard Program and establish the rules and guidance employees <br />must follow in order to retain the privilege of having and using County pCards. <br />In 2014, the County spent approximately $1.15 million using its pCards. We initially reviewed <br />570 transactions totaling $94,036.42 from 2014. During the course of our audit, we identified <br />transactions that required us to expand our initial audit testing to include an additional 362 <br />transactions totaling $68,576.71 from 2009-2015. Of these transactions, most were for a <br />legitimate department purpose, were authorized by the department, and generally followed <br />county policies and guidelines. Audit testing included the following risk areas where no <br />exceptions were found: <br />• Cash Advances — The Purchasing Card Program and Procedures prohibits using <br />pCards for cash advances. Audit testing did not identify any cash advances. <br />• Split Purchases — Splitting orders or costs to circumvent the transaction limit is <br />prohibited. No split transactions without documented approval were identified. <br />• Restricted Purchases - The Purchasing Card Program and Procedures specifically <br />restricts using pCards for printing, County storeroom supplies, and safety equipment <br />without prior approval from the Purchasing Division. Audit testing did not identify any of <br />these purchases that did not obtain adequate prior approval. <br />We commend the Department of Finance on the effectiveness of the controls that have been <br />implemented. However, audit work did identify some instances of non-compliance. <br />Some purchases did not follow county policies, had a questionable public <br />purpose, and may have violated state law. <br />The Hawai"i State Constitution, the Hawai"i Revised Statutes (HRS), the Hawai"i County <br />Charter, the Hawai"i County Code, and the various county policies all require that public funds <br />be used for a public purpose. (See Appendix A for details.) While the majority of the <br />transactions tested from 2009-2015 were appropriate, we found 164 transactions totaling <br />Purchasing Card Program :: Audit Results 16 <br />