California State Controller Speaks
The Appeal Democrat article (State OKs Sutter cost allocation, 10/19/05) indicates that we will be hearing more SPIN on the financial position of Sutter County.
The California State Controller’s office has issued a Field Review Report on “County of Sutter Cost Allocation Plan.” The Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) is used by California counties to allocate overhead costs to “grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with the federal government.”
The Field Review Report is NOT an audit of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. However, the California State Controller’s office has “the authority to review, negotiate, and approve the countywide cost allocation plan for California counties.”
The Field Review Report was approved by the Sutter County elected Auditor-Controller on October 17, 2005.
According to the Appeal Democrat, Deputy CAO Coad said, “The bottom line is, the IT rates are fine.” The Controller’s report doesn’t necessarily agree, “When comparing these worksheets to each program’s Appropriations/Revenue Status Report for fiscal year 2003-04, the prior year’s carry-over amounts do not reconcile to the amounts shown on the status reports.”
How does Mr. Coad reconcile his statement to this report finding and recommendation?
“The Information Technology Department (Program 85) administers an online web project for the Clerk of the Board and charges cost to all departments based on full time equivalents (FTE’s).
The SCO does not support including these costs in Program 85, for which costs are billed to all county departments based on FTE’s.”
For the uninitiated, this means that the Information Technology Department has been erroneously charging other departments for cost that are related to the Clerk of the Board/Board of Supervisors. So, Mr. Coad, are the rates really fine? Maybe not. The Appeal Democrat reports County CAO Combs as saying “that Stark never responded to Kucharczuk's offer to provide the information and is using the cost allocation plan as a weapon.”
The Appeal Democrat reports Stark said, “We are conceding nothing. We could not get information from Combs or (former IT Director Bernadette) Kucharczuk to verify the rates; therefore I could not certify the cost plan.”
I really don’t think that it is over unless the County CAO can get one of his own to become the Auditor-Controller.
I would suggest that for a person to believe Mr. Combs and Mr. Coad (County Administration) you would have to assume that they run a tight ship in their office. If you do you will probably be disappointed.
The State Controller’s report indicated that the County Administrator’s Office was preparing time cards based upon monthly time “estimates.” There will be more on this problem in a future posting. Folks, these “estimates” are a part of the billing to the feds.
Lastly, the Fleet Management fun balance at June 30, 2004 as $840,460. The fiscal management of the CAO has caused this fund to accumulate more than $700,000 above the allowed amount.
Folks, it appears as if the Sutter County Administrator’s office is not really on top of things. The Appeal Democrat reports “Combs and Coad said Stark never told them the reporting requirements changed about five years ago. The change will be made, they said.” These two are apparently responsible for the creation of internal charges for the County. I have seen their unique accounting method and will discuss it in a future posting.
This is a difficult subject. I do not blame the Appeal Democrat for not know what the correct questions are. I do wonder if the Board of Supervisors are really in charge and do they really know what is going on in the CAO’s office?
I would suggest that the elected Auditor-Controller, Mr. Stark, has been too easy on this group. Certifying reports to the State of California to obtain reimbursements from the feds is an important task and should not be left to the whim of the CAO or even the Board of Supervisors who are obviously not skilled in the subject.
I would suggest that the CAO take a moment and see what his duties really are. The Board of Supervisors may hold the purse strings but elected officials are responsible to the public for their actions. An unelected CAO is not their boss!
The California State Controller’s office has issued a Field Review Report on “County of Sutter Cost Allocation Plan.” The Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) is used by California counties to allocate overhead costs to “grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with the federal government.”
The Field Review Report is NOT an audit of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. However, the California State Controller’s office has “the authority to review, negotiate, and approve the countywide cost allocation plan for California counties.”
The Field Review Report was approved by the Sutter County elected Auditor-Controller on October 17, 2005.
According to the Appeal Democrat, Deputy CAO Coad said, “The bottom line is, the IT rates are fine.” The Controller’s report doesn’t necessarily agree, “When comparing these worksheets to each program’s Appropriations/Revenue Status Report for fiscal year 2003-04, the prior year’s carry-over amounts do not reconcile to the amounts shown on the status reports.”
How does Mr. Coad reconcile his statement to this report finding and recommendation?
“The Information Technology Department (Program 85) administers an online web project for the Clerk of the Board and charges cost to all departments based on full time equivalents (FTE’s).
The SCO does not support including these costs in Program 85, for which costs are billed to all county departments based on FTE’s.”
For the uninitiated, this means that the Information Technology Department has been erroneously charging other departments for cost that are related to the Clerk of the Board/Board of Supervisors. So, Mr. Coad, are the rates really fine? Maybe not. The Appeal Democrat reports County CAO Combs as saying “that Stark never responded to Kucharczuk's offer to provide the information and is using the cost allocation plan as a weapon.”
The Appeal Democrat reports Stark said, “We are conceding nothing. We could not get information from Combs or (former IT Director Bernadette) Kucharczuk to verify the rates; therefore I could not certify the cost plan.”
I really don’t think that it is over unless the County CAO can get one of his own to become the Auditor-Controller.
I would suggest that for a person to believe Mr. Combs and Mr. Coad (County Administration) you would have to assume that they run a tight ship in their office. If you do you will probably be disappointed.
The State Controller’s report indicated that the County Administrator’s Office was preparing time cards based upon monthly time “estimates.” There will be more on this problem in a future posting. Folks, these “estimates” are a part of the billing to the feds.
Lastly, the Fleet Management fun balance at June 30, 2004 as $840,460. The fiscal management of the CAO has caused this fund to accumulate more than $700,000 above the allowed amount.
Folks, it appears as if the Sutter County Administrator’s office is not really on top of things. The Appeal Democrat reports “Combs and Coad said Stark never told them the reporting requirements changed about five years ago. The change will be made, they said.” These two are apparently responsible for the creation of internal charges for the County. I have seen their unique accounting method and will discuss it in a future posting.
This is a difficult subject. I do not blame the Appeal Democrat for not know what the correct questions are. I do wonder if the Board of Supervisors are really in charge and do they really know what is going on in the CAO’s office?
I would suggest that the elected Auditor-Controller, Mr. Stark, has been too easy on this group. Certifying reports to the State of California to obtain reimbursements from the feds is an important task and should not be left to the whim of the CAO or even the Board of Supervisors who are obviously not skilled in the subject.
I would suggest that the CAO take a moment and see what his duties really are. The Board of Supervisors may hold the purse strings but elected officials are responsible to the public for their actions. An unelected CAO is not their boss!
<< Home