Audit faults school district’s fixed assets safeguards
A state audit found that fixed assets were not tagged as city school district property, new assets were not added to the district inventory list, and a contractor-generated asset list did not correspond to the district’s information technology department’s asset list.
The audit, conducted for the period of July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017, recommended that the district ensure that all fixed assets above the established thresholds have a tag affixed identifying them as district property; ensure that new assets are added to the inventory software; and the dis-
trict review and compare the contractor-generated asset list with its list to ensure the district has a complete and accurate inventory of computers.
In response to the audit, Superintendent Paul Padalino wrote that the district “has a relatively new asset management system and procedures in place for tracking our fixed assets.” He said they are “working hard to perfect our operation in this area, in the face of personnel
changes (since April 2017) on the district and support side.”
Information technology asset management is “a complicated matter,” Padalino wrote, noting that many assets are owned by Ulster BOCES rather than the school district.
Padalino wrote that, while the audit field work was being undertaken during the summer of 2017, “computers were being rearranged, moved around to support cleaning and construction, re-imaged, replaced – an annual renewal process and hectic period.” He said, though, that all 46 computers examined for asset tagging
were located; all 20 computers traced to check asset additions were located; and all 22 computers surveyed under contract list were located – 20 by the auditor, and the other two later by us after we were made aware of the items being sought.”
As part of their investigation, auditors reviewed 46 computers in two locations and found that 11 of the computers did not have district tags. “We were not able to identify when these computers were purchased or their value as they were not recently acquired,” auditors wrote in their report. “Officials told us that the contractor
was responsible for tagging these computers.”
The state officials also looked at asset additions during the audit period that totaled some $425,000. They included 62 computers valued at approximately $54,000. “We traced 20 computers valued at $17,500, and found that they were all tagged but none had been added to the asset list created by the contractor. The forms sent to the receiving departments were not returned to the business office for the assets to be properly added to the inventory record.”
Auditors said when assets
are not properly tagged or added to inventory records timely, “they are more susceptible to loss or theft and district officials do not have assurance that all property can be accounted for.”
The state investigators also traced 22 computers from the contractor’s list, valued at $39,000, and could not locate two computers valued at $3,472 in a school building on the IT list. The IT director thought the devices may have been disposed of after the contractor’s inventory was completed, the audit reported.
In addition, the auditors examined computers to determine
if their service tag numbers and district numbers matched both the contract and the district information technology lists. “Although all computers had a service tag number only 20 (of the 46 computers examined) were on the information technology list. District officials told us that they think the contractor may have grouped some computers together due to their age.”
Auditors said that, without accurate and up-to-date fixed asset records, “district officials cannot ensure that district assets are properly accounted for and protected against loss.”