On September
14, 2023,
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local
government and school audits were issued.
Click on the text highlighted in color to access an Executive
Summary of the Audit Report and a link to the complete text of the Audit Report
East Hampton Union Free School District
– Network and Financial Application Access and Information Technology (IT)
Contingency Planning (Suffolk County)
School district
officials secured user account access to the financial application but did not
secure user account access to the network or develop an IT contingency plan.
This increases the risk of unauthorized access, lost data, and inability to
recover from a network disruption. In addition, the district’s use of two
central network management tools for over 10 years has created security
concerns due to lack of monitoring of all accounts on both tools. Also,
auditors found 91% of the district’s enabled network user accounts were not
logged into in the last six months. Accounts grant access to sensitive
information, and unneeded accounts should be disabled to protect data. Lastly,
officials also did not provide IT security awareness training to district IT
users.
Dutchess Board of Cooperative
Educational Services (BOCES) – Electricity Contract Monitoring and Billing
(Dutchess County)
BOCES officials
did not monitor electricity rates to ensure they were at the lowest possible
cost or ensure that invoices for electricity usage were accurate. Had officials
monitored the electricity rates and ensured the utility bills were accurate,
officials may have reduced BOCES electricity supply expenses by almost 50%, or
approximately $172,000, during the 28-month audit period.
Town of Venice – Supervisor’s Financial
Records and Reports (Cayuga County)
The supervisor’s
accounting records were not complete, accurate or up to date. Of the 39 cash
receipts totaling $6.1 million, and 36 cash disbursements totaling $124,391
reviewed: 20 cash receipts totaling $3.1 million either did not match bank
deposits or lacked adequate support documentation, 25 cash receipts totaling
$4.8 million were not recorded on time in the supervisor’s accounting records,
11 disbursements totaling $39,038 were not recorded in the accounting records,
and eight disbursements totaling $33,021 lacked adequate support documentation
and were not board approved. Furthermore, bank reconciliations for 15 of the 36
months reviewed were not performed, and the town’s 2020 required annual update
document (AUD) was filed 310 days late. The 2021 and 2022 AUDs were not filed.
The supervisor also did not present financial records and reports to the board
for audit, as required.
Onondaga County – Sexual Harassment
Prevention (SHP) Training (S9-23-8)
SHP training was
provided to employees and elected officials. However, of the 250 total
individuals tested (227 selected employees and all 23 elected officials),
14 employees, or 6%, of employees tested did not complete the annual SHP
training.
Town of Southold – Sexual Harassment
Prevention (SHP) Training (Suffolk County)
SHP training was
provided to employees and elected officials. However, of the 45 total
individuals tested (26 selected employees and all 19 elected officials), six
employees and 10 elected officials did not complete the annual SHP training.
Additionally, of the 423 total town employees and elected officials tested, 10
justice court employees, 38 police department employees and the town historian
were excluded from the SHP training.
Town of New Hartford – Sexual
Harassment Prevention (SHP) Training (Oneida County)
SHP training was
provided to employees and elected officials. However, of the 20 total
individuals tested (11 selected employees and all nine elected officials),
three employees and six elected officials did not complete the annual SHP
Training. Additionally, the town excluded new hires at the highway department
who started after April’s scheduled session from SHP training.
Village of Lynbrook – Sexual Harassment
Prevention (SHP) Training (Nassau County)
SHP training was
provided to employees and elected officials. However, of the 35 total
individuals tested (28 selected employees and all seven elected officials), six
employees (21%) did not complete the annual SHP training.
###