Pend Oreille County Criticized For Tardy Reports Auditors Blame Inefficiency On Being Understaffed

Pend Oreille County took so long to file its 1997 financial report that the state auditor’s office has just now figured out which wrist to slap.

A state report on the county’s finances in 1997 couldn’t be released until this month because the county didn’t file its 1997 report to the state until April 1999, almost a year after it was due.

The 1997 report was even later than the 1996 report, which was seven months late.

“That’s just what happens when you don’t have enough staff,” county Auditor Ann Swenson said. “It took a long while to get the commissioners to realize that we need a third person in the accounting department because the county has grown.”

A third accounting position was created last summer, but Swenson said she has had trouble finding and keeping qualified workers.

Now, though, Swenson said she’s gaining the upper hand and will file the 1998 report within a month. It was due almost three months ago.

Swenson predicts the 1999 report will be completed on time, within the first five months of next year.

“It better be,” Swenson said. “We’re working hard at that.”

Aside from overdue reports, Pend Oreille County was criticized for a continuing failure in 1997 to keep proper track of federal grants the county received. State auditors said they couldn’t be sure grant-giving agencies weren’t overbilled.

In 1997, auditors noted, the county billed granting agencies for “at least $49,000” in undocumented expenditures. To make amends, the county reduced its claims by that amount in the following year.

Swenson said that “not quite a year ago” the county acquired computer software capable of tracking grant expenditures, but lack of staff and procedures has frustrated efforts to assign special accounting codes to grant activities. She hopes to correct the problem “within the next few months.”

The District Court, which operates somewhat independently from other county offices, got credit for efforts in 1997 to tighten up sloppy procedures found in the previous year’s audit.

In 1996, cash-handling duties weren’t properly separated to prevent embezzlement, audit reports weren’t being generated, bank statements weren’t being reconciled and employees weren’t being monitored adequately, according to the auditor’s office.

In 1997, auditors said, better monitoring compensated for continued failure to separate cash-handling duties and officials hoped to correct the problem by hiring another employee. Audit reports were made and reviewed, and the court staff started keeping records of fines the judge reduced in court.