July 17, 2021

Audits and reports issued during the week ending July 16, 2021 by the New York State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending July 16, 2021. 

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the complete audit report.

MUNICIPAL AUDITS

City of Binghamton – Joint Sewage Treatment Facility Capital Project Planning and Monitoring (Broome County)City officials properly planned and monitored the project by establishing a sound process for overseeing project activities that included daily onsite inspections documenting the following: daily onsite personnel; leak testing results for treatment lines; concrete inspection and testing results, including core samples and composition and work progress through photographic evidence. In addition, city officials ensured construction change orders were made only when warranted and after a thorough review. They avoided $11.3 million in interest and financing costs over 30 years by obtaining a $15 million interest-free loan and securing grants to fund 27 percent of project costs. In addition, city officials withheld payments to contractors to recover some of the $3.1 million in additional costs that were due to project delays.

Incorporated Village of Garden City – Check Signing (Nassau County) The village’s check signing process does not comply with village policy and the village treasurer did not maintain control of her electronic signature. In addition, the treasurer allowed her signature to be affixed to checks without her being present. Alternate signatories did not sign in the absence of the treasurer and deputy treasurer.

Selkirk Fire District – Procurement of Professional Services (2021M-55) (Glens Falls Regional Office)District officials did not solicit competition for professional services. During the audit period, district officials paid 12 professional service providers $759,029 without soliciting competition. Officials also did not issue a request for proposals for audit services totaling $25,200, although required by policy. In addition, officials could not provide documentation that they used other methods to assess the accountability, reliability, responsibility, skill, education and training, judgment, integrity and moral worth of the professional service providers as required by the district’s procurement policy.

 

SCHOOL DISTRICT AUDITS

Watervliet City School District – Information Technology (Albany County) The board and district officials did not ensure the information technology (IT) assets and data were safeguarded. Officials did not establish written procedures for managing, limiting and monitoring user accounts. Auditors determined officials also did not disable 72 unneeded network accounts in a timely manner. Officials also did not monitor compliance with the acceptable computer use policy. As a result, 12 of 13 computers auditors tested accessed nonbusiness websites prohibited by the policy. Sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

Westhill Central School District – Information Technology (Onondaga County) District officials did not implement adequate information technology (IT) controls over the district office’s network to safeguard personal, private and sensitive information. District officials also did not monitor employee Internet use. Auditors found eight of 10 employees’ computers they reviewed were used for personal internet activity. District officials did not properly manage network user accounts. Auditors examined all 31 enabled network user accounts on the district office domain controller. Six unneeded network user accounts, seven shared user accounts and three user accounts were found with unneeded administrative permissions. In addition, district officials did not provide formalized IT security awareness training to staff. Sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to district officials.

 

 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material in this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to seek such advice from a competent professional.