City of Stockton - Audit Findings Tracking Report
3/10/2023
( A) ( B) ( C) ( D)
Reports
Total Findings
Open Findings
(Not Yet Completed by
C
ity)
Validated Findings
(By Moss Adams)
Reportable Findings
(Newly validated since last
s
ummary)
2011 Memorandum of Internal Control for CAFR (MOIC11 ) 38 1 37 0 2011 Single Audit (SA11 ) 5 0 5 0
2010 Single Audit (SA10 ) 8 0 8 0
2010 Report to Management (RMIC10 ) 3 0 3 0
Internal Audit 36 8 28 0
2002 Performance Audit - Administrative Directives (IA-AD ) 1 0 1 0 2007 Internal Control Evaluation - Stockton Events Center (IA-SEC ) 1 0 1 0 2008 Performance Audit - Library Fines and Fees (IA-LIB ) 1 0 1 0 2010 Compliance Audit - Election Costs (IA-EC ) 1 0 1 0 2010 Performance Audit - Fire Department Overtime Processing System (IA-FP ) 2 0 2 0 2012 Compliance Audit-ARRA Update (IA-ARRA ) 4 4 0 0
2012 Compliance Audit: Disbursements – Payment Authority (IA-PA ) 10 1 9 0 2012 Compliance Audit: Disbursements – Purchase Cards (IA-PC ) 5 0 5 0 2005 Performance Audit: City Clerk (IA-CC ) 1 0 1 0
2012 Performance Audit: Police Property Room (IA-PP ) 3 0 3 0 2012 Performance Audit: Fleet Utilization and Management (IA-FUM ) 7 3 4 0 2011 City of Stockton's Gas Tax Audit (SCOGT11 ) 3 0 3 0 2011 City of Stockton's Administrative and Accounting Controls Review (SCOIC11 ) 8 2 6 0 2011 City of Stockton's Redevelopment Agency Asset Transfer Review (SCORA11 ) 2 0 2 0 2014 City of Stockton's Crime Statistics Report for the Department of Justice Program (SCOCS14 ) 1 0 1 0 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report, Case No. 0112 (SCGJ-112 ) 22 1 21 0 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report, Case No. 0312 (SCGJ-312 ) 2 1 1 0 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report, Case No. 0912 (SCGJ-912 ) 4 0 4 0 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report, Case No. 1112 (SCGJ-1112 ) 1 0 1 0 2012-2013 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report, Law and Justice Report (SCGJ-LAW ) 1 0 1 0 2013-2014 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report, Stockton City Council and The Brown Act (SCGJ-BRN ) 14 2 12 0 2013-2014 San Joaquin County Grand Jury Report, Case No. 1613 (SCGJ-1613 ) 2 0 2 0 2013 Internal Controls Review (Enterprise Risk Assessment) (MA-ICR ) 70 16 54 1 2014 Internal Audit of Revenue and Cash Operations (MA-REV ) 18 2 16 0 2014 Internal Audit of IT General Controls (MA-IT ) 20 10 10 0 2014 Internal Audit of Payroll Operations (MA-PAY ) 12 2 10 0 2014 Internal Audit of Accounts Payable and Procurement Internal Controls (MA-AP/PUR ) 10 0 10 0 2015 Internal Audit of Monthly Close Process (MA-MON ) 4 0 4 0 2015 Internal Audit of Grants Management (MA-GRANT ) 3 3 0 0 2017 Internal Controls Testing: Cash Handling (MA-CASH ) 18 7 11 1 2017 Internal Controls Testing: Month End Close and Reconciliation Process (MA-MONIC ) 13 3 10 0 2017 Internal Controls Testing: Grants Management and Administration (MA-17GRANT ) 15 9 6 0 2017 Internal Controls Testing: Payroll and Timekeeping (MA-17PAY ) 15 5 10 0 2017 Internal Controls Testing: Superion Access (MA-17IT ) 4 1 3 0 2017 Internal Controls Testing: Purchasing and AP (MA-17PUR ) 16 4 12 0 2018 Internal Controls Testing: Travel Expenses (MA-18TRVL ) 4 0 4 0 2020 Venue Management Performance Audit (MA-20VMGT ) 15 15 0 0 2020 Internal Controls Testing: Purchasing Card (MA-20PCRD ) 5 3 2 0 2012 SAS 115 - Internal Controls Identified in an Audit (12 SAS115 ) 11 0 11 0 2012 Single Audit Report (SA12 ) 6 2 4 0
2013 SAS 115 - Internal Controls Identified in an Audit (13 SAS115 ) 9 0 9 0 2013 Single Audit Report (SA13 ) 3 0 3 0
2014 Single Audit Report (SA14) 2 0 2 0
2014 SAS 115 - Internal Controls Identified in an Audit (14SAS115 ) 6 0 6 0 2015 SAS 115 - Internal Controls Identified in an Audit (15SAS115 ) 4 0 4 0 2015 Single Audit Report (SA15 ) 2 0 2 0
2016 SAS 114 - Report on Internal Control Related Matters Identified in the Audit (16SAS114 ) 4 1 3 0 2017 Single Audit (SA17 ) 6 0 6 0
2017 SAS 115 - Report on Internal Control Related Matters Idenfitied in the Audit (17SAS115 ) 4 0 4 0 2018 SAS 115 - Report on Internal Control Related Matters Identified in the Audit (18SAS115 ) 2 0 2 0 2016 Public Agency Review (16PAR) 1 1 0 0
2012 Independent Accountant's Report on RDA Dissolution - Agreed Upon Procedures Engagement (RDA-AUP ) 5 1 4 0 2022 Internal Controls Testing: Inventory (MA-22INV ) 6 6 0 0 2021 SAS 115 - Report on Internal Control Related Matters Identified in the Audit (21SAS115 ) 1 0 1 1 2022 SAS 115 - Report on Internal Control Related Matters Identified in the Audit 1 1 0 0 Total 465 107 358 3
Legend:
Reports = report name
Reporting Entity = organization that prepared the report Total Findings = number of findings in the report
Open Findings = number of findings not yet completed by City Completed Findings = number of findings completed by City, both and not yet validated Validated Findings = number of findings validated by Moss Adams as completed and adequately addresses the finding Reportable Findings=number of findings validated since last summary report for Audit Committee report Relationships between Columns
Total Findings: Column (A) = Column ( B ) + Column ( C) Open Findings: Column (B)
Completed Findings: Column (C) = Column ( A ) - (B)
Validated Findings: Column (D) (subset of (C) Completed Findings) Reportable Findings: Column (E) (subset of (D) Validated Findings) Attachment A
Item No. Finding No. Report Code Report Date Finding Recommendation Responsible
Dept(s)
<MA
Validated/Clos
ed?>
Moss Adams Determination
187 H ‐7M A ‐ICR 8/19/2013 End ‐user computing knowhow should allow spreadsheet users to maintain accurate, complete, and timely spreadsheets.
Continue to conduct training for staff to improve Excel processing skills and knowledge on how to verify the completeness and accuracy of reports from HTE. A dditionally, build these skills into employees’ goals and job performance evaluations, so employees can be held accountable.
IT Yes Closed following the approval of Employee Performance Evaluation policies and procedures in January 2023.
355 15 MA ‐CASH 9/27/2016 Not all systems used by City departments have adequate system controls or appropriately restrict access. In addition, the City’s policies and procedures do not address system control and access, such as limiting certain functions like fee upda tes and voids. Depending on departments’ system configurations, employees may be able to perform certain activities without the involvement or approval of supervisors. For example, the system used by one division does not include individual user accounts, making it impossible to determine who performed transactions. Similarly, in another system although st aff members have individual accounts, any user can adjust fees. Currently, users have to adjust fees in order to charge the current fee rate as the fees in the system are outdated. 1) Update citywide cash handling and revenue policies and procedures to establish minimum requirements for system access and control.
2) A
dditionally, the following locations should consider
implementing the following improvements:
o Departments with system weaknesses should collaborate with IT to determine if individual usernames can be implemented in the current system. If not, departments should implement mitigating controls to monitor activity by locations and investigate fluctuations in fee waivers. In th e long‐term, departments should explore the possibility of transitioning to an alternative system.
o Departments with identified system weaknesses should review all of the fees currently loaded into the system and update all fees accordingly. Departments, in collaboration with IT, should explore the ability to limit the override function to ce rtain employees only.
Until access restrictions can be effectively implemented, departments should implement a process to monitor overrides and voids on an ongoing basis at each location, as well as centrally.
ASD: Revenue;
Cash Dept's
Yes Closed following review of system access report detailing restricted users that have capabilities to change fees.
464
1 21SAS115 3/14/2022 During the fiscal year 2020‐2021, the City implemented the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System. We noted the following deficiencies:
Bank reconciliation – The City did not reconcile its bank in a timely fashion and was unable to reconcile its operating account. As a result, there was a discrepancies in th e amount of $785,277.
Capital Assets – Instruction was not clear on the data input and as a result, the depreciation was miscalculated.
Reporting – There are less options for reporting and providing details.
During the year end phase of the audit, the accounting team was still resolving the implementation issues and rec onciling the differences between the subsidiary ledgers and the general ledger.
N/A ASD‐Accounting Yes Closed following confirmation from the City's financial auditor that this issue was not repeated in the FY2022 audit, and can therefore be closed.
Attachment A