Town Codes        Town Codes        Search Town Minutes

New Hartford NY Online YouTube Channel

To find videos of Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board Board meetings, click here!

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Finding #2016-1

There were two (2) findings listed in the 2016 "DRAFT" audit; I already blogged about one...the missing Fixed Asset records which is a material weakness.

Here is the second one copied directly from page 3 of the "DRAFT" 2016 audit letter to the town board:
A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

We consider the deficiency described in the accompany schedule of findings and recommendations as item 2016-1 to be significant deficiency.

According to page 5 of the 2016 "DRAFT" audit, or whatever it is called at the moment:

Findings~ Financial Statements Audit

2016-1 Procurement

Criteria: The Town's procurement policy under the New York State General Municipal Law 103 and 104(b) requires the following:
  • Purchases for $1,000 and $19,999 ($34,999 for public works projects) will require at least three (3) informal price quotes, unless it is determined that formal price quotes are required.
  • Purchases for public works contracts at $35,000 or more require formal competitive bidding.
  • In determining the necessity for competitive bidding, the aggregate (accumulative) cost of an item or commodity being purchased in a fiscal year must be considered. It is prohibited to artificially divide purchases to satisfy threshold amounts.
Condition: Contractor working on storm-water drains and also doing small jobs for the Town that accumulated to $500,850. The work that was done did not adhere to the Town's quote and bidding purchasing policy. The contractor worked on storm-water drains throughout the entire city. Some of the streets were done on an emergency bid. However, these did not have proper emergency approval. After the streets needing emergence repairs were done, the contractor continued work on other storm drains for the Town without quotes or bids.

Cause: Unknown Effect or potential effect: Non-compliance.

Recommendation: The Town should institute systems and procedures to insure compliance with its procurement policy.

Oh, many times did I write about this?

Just so everyone understands, the $500,850 mentioned in the audit finding is only the amount spent on "no bid" work for 2016. The actual total of "no bid" work is far more!

At last night's town board meeting, one of the councilmen inquired as to the status of the 2016 Final Audit. Tyksinski assured them that is was just about done and will be ready soon. (He said it would be ready within a week...two weeks top at the May 30, 2017 appeal meeting). He also said that there are some changes and additions to the audit.

Funny that the four (4) councilmen don't know anything about the audit at this point. Since they are the overseers of the audit, shouldn't they be aware of any changes or additions before Tyksinski signs off on the audit?

Yeah, sure, any day now, oh Exalted One! Is it because you were able to convince D'Arcangelo that the no bid contracts were really FEMA-related? I highly doubt it! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

1 comment:

anonymouse said...

aka bid rigging

follow the you-know-what