Submitted by knoxvegas99 on Thu, 2008/03/06 - 8:14pm.
Speaking with DeFreese after yesterday's commission agenda meeting, I came away convinced she isn't content to be a placeholder. How much support she'll get for this resolution, who knows? But it's not likely to endear her to the already beleaguered occupants of Suite 615.
Most will remember this issue (subpoena powers) being raised last fall. It became a non-issue in the fallout of the sunshine law trial, and it's conceivable that the Law Director would prefer that it remain so. It's not at all clear that an "investigation" by County Commission at this point would help John Owings' efforts, especially if he concludes that the findings of the latest audit are weighty enough to refer to law enforcement types. Indeed, a show trial before this "court" (County Commission) could easily become a nightmare for Ragsdale's detractors.
Submitted by Ragsdale2010 (not verified) on Fri, 2008/03/07 - 8:55am.
Commission can't order the law director to take action to recover the money spent and also conduct its own investigation under subpoena, everybody will take the 5th amendment and cite pending legal action for no commnet.
Commission would serve the taxpayers well by simply conducting a fact finding mission, under oath and pursuant to subpoena, to find out why these huge sums of money were spent with nothing to show for it, why nobody bothered to bring the wholesale abuse of the process to commission, why so many receipts were missing, and finally, how the p card program controls were evicerated to allow this type of abuse of the system to occur.
Submitted by RayCapps on Fri, 2008/03/07 - 10:45am.
and finally, how the p card program controls were evicerated to allow this type of abuse of the system to occur.
The oversight and documentation, by policy, stopped with the department heads. I've never heard of anything that silly before. Maybe it's just because I've spend my life in the private sector, but the notion that the documentation should stop at any point prior to reaching the person who cuts the checks to pay the bills strikes me as unthinkable. It's a pretty straightforward and consistent process everywhere I've ever submitted an expense report.
1. Person submitting the report fills out the form including the accounts the monies should be applied against. The requestor then signs and dates the report, attaches the supporting receipts, and forwards the expense report to their supervisor.
2. The supervisor reviews the report and, if everything passes muster, signs and dates his/her approvals and forwards it to Accounts Payable.
3. Accounts Payable then reviews the expense report - validating the receipts, account numbers, and signatures - files the report, then cuts the check.
If the expenses were paid using a company card rather than out of pocket to the employee, all of the above still take place, and there's a fourth or even fifth step that kicks in when necessary...
4. If the company card invoice includes charges for which Accounts Payable has not received an expense report, the employee holding the card is notified of the undocumented charges.
5. If neither an expense report nor a personal check has reached Accounts Payable prior to time to pay the bill, the bill is still paid, the employee is invoiced for the undocumented amount, the employee's supervisor is appraised of the situation, and a note is made in the employee's personnel file.
What's so flippin' hard about that? It makes it nearly impossible to charge personal expenses to the company without collusion and provides a crystal clear audit trail. Apparently, however, Knox County Government thought they knew a better way than GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).
Submitted by Ragsdale2010 (not verified) on Fri, 2008/03/07 - 11:21am.
the cards were originally in parameters that they could not be used locally (it would simply be declined at the terminal when placed into the card reader at Regas)and somebody jimmied with the program parameters and loosened the rules to allow the cards to be used virtually anywhere (probably even for on-line gambling)and those people need to appear before commission, under subpoena, under oath, and explain why they did what they did.
Speaking with DeFreese after yesterday's commission agenda meeting, I came away convinced she isn't content to be a placeholder. How much support she'll get for this resolution, who knows? But it's not likely to endear her to the already beleaguered occupants of Suite 615.
Most will remember this issue (subpoena powers) being raised last fall. It became a non-issue in the fallout of the sunshine law trial, and it's conceivable that the Law Director would prefer that it remain so. It's not at all clear that an "investigation" by County Commission at this point would help John Owings' efforts, especially if he concludes that the findings of the latest audit are weighty enough to refer to law enforcement types. Indeed, a show trial before this "court" (County Commission) could easily become a nightmare for Ragsdale's detractors.
Just something to consider.
Larry Van Guilder
Commission can't order the law director to take action to recover the money spent and also conduct its own investigation under subpoena, everybody will take the 5th amendment and cite pending legal action for no commnet.
Commission would serve the taxpayers well by simply conducting a fact finding mission, under oath and pursuant to subpoena, to find out why these huge sums of money were spent with nothing to show for it, why nobody bothered to bring the wholesale abuse of the process to commission, why so many receipts were missing, and finally, how the p card program controls were evicerated to allow this type of abuse of the system to occur.
The oversight and documentation, by policy, stopped with the department heads. I've never heard of anything that silly before. Maybe it's just because I've spend my life in the private sector, but the notion that the documentation should stop at any point prior to reaching the person who cuts the checks to pay the bills strikes me as unthinkable. It's a pretty straightforward and consistent process everywhere I've ever submitted an expense report.
1. Person submitting the report fills out the form including the accounts the monies should be applied against. The requestor then signs and dates the report, attaches the supporting receipts, and forwards the expense report to their supervisor.
2. The supervisor reviews the report and, if everything passes muster, signs and dates his/her approvals and forwards it to Accounts Payable.
3. Accounts Payable then reviews the expense report - validating the receipts, account numbers, and signatures - files the report, then cuts the check.
If the expenses were paid using a company card rather than out of pocket to the employee, all of the above still take place, and there's a fourth or even fifth step that kicks in when necessary...
4. If the company card invoice includes charges for which Accounts Payable has not received an expense report, the employee holding the card is notified of the undocumented charges.
5. If neither an expense report nor a personal check has reached Accounts Payable prior to time to pay the bill, the bill is still paid, the employee is invoiced for the undocumented amount, the employee's supervisor is appraised of the situation, and a note is made in the employee's personnel file.
What's so flippin' hard about that? It makes it nearly impossible to charge personal expenses to the company without collusion and provides a crystal clear audit trail. Apparently, however, Knox County Government thought they knew a better way than GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).
the cards were originally in parameters that they could not be used locally (it would simply be declined at the terminal when placed into the card reader at Regas)and somebody jimmied with the program parameters and loosened the rules to allow the cards to be used virtually anywhere (probably even for on-line gambling)and those people need to appear before commission, under subpoena, under oath, and explain why they did what they did.
Post new comment