The Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department Did Not Properly Approve $25,599 in Payroll Expenses, Including $17,734 in Overtime Payments.

In response to the audit, the SCSD reports it has taken steps to improve its payroll approval process.

Overview

In many instances, overtime for the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department’s (SCSD’s) correction officers was not properly approved. Specifically, we reviewed the Time and Attendance Roster Forms for one payroll date for each of the 43 correction officers in our sample. We found that 38 (88%) were paid $17,734 for overtime that was not approved by an SCSD shift commander, and there was no evidence that the overtime had been reviewed by the assistant superintendent of operations. In addition, these 38 correction officers were paid $7,865 for non-overtime work hours that were not properly approved. As a result, SCSD management cannot be certain that all the compensation provided to these correction officers on these days was appropriate.

Authoritative Guidance

The “Payroll Processing Procedures” section of SCSD’s internal control plan (ICP) states,

1. 1. Shift Operations: Shift commanders complete the daily entry of employee time and attendance information on approved paper or electronic roster forms authorizing the payment of these reported hours.
      1. A signature on the paper roster, or an email with the attached electronic roster, certifies the information as accurate and ready for processing.
   2. The [assistant superintendent of operations], or designee, reviews the daily roster forms for the accuracy, authorization and necessity of overtime and time-off use.

Reasons for Issue

SCSD management stated that they believed the submission of paper Time and Attendance Roster Forms by the shift commanders in the presence of an assistant superintendent was sufficient to ensure that controls over payroll, including overtime use, as outlined in the SCSD ICP, were properly executed. However, this practice is not consistent with SCSD’s payroll processing procedures, which require that shift commanders sign off on employee Time and Attendance Roster Forms. In the Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA’s) opinion, the process described does not provide adequate control over the processing of payroll, including overtime, because there is no documentation to substantiate that the information on the rosters in question had supervisory-level review and approval.

Recommendations

1. SCSD should take the measures necessary to ensure that all Time and Attendance Roster Forms are properly reviewed and approved.
2. SCSD should consider amending its current procedures to require that the assistant superintendent of operations or their designee who reviews the daily Time and Attendance Roster Forms also sign off on the forms to acknowledge that this review has been performed.
3. SCSD should establish monitoring controls to ensure that these procedures are followed.

Auditee’s Response

SCSD disputes the statement by the Office of the State Auditor that, “SCSD management cannot be certain that all the compensation provided to these [correction] officers was appropriate.” SCSD has long utilized the following practice of authorizing and reviewing all overtime in accordance with Section 3.12.1 of our Internal Control Plan: “A signature on the paper roster, or an email with the attached electronic roster, certifies the information as accurate and ready for processing.”

Accordingly, the assertion that, 88% of the overtime reviewed was not approved by an SCSD shift commander is factually inaccurate. The authorization process utilized required the shift commanders to select the employees to work the overtime shift, assign them to the vacant post to work, and, finally, document the overtime hours worked onto the Time and Attendance Roster Forms, which they then e-mail to the Human Resources Division for processing.

The shift commander then forwards a physical copy of the Time and Attendance Roster Form to the Assistant Superintendent of Operations (ASO) for supervisory-level review and approval of reported hours. The ASO files these Time and Attendance Roster Forms in a dated folder, along with all other reports and paperwork from that day, for record-keeping purposes and future reference. These measures provide management the assurance that overtime assignments were necessary and authorized.

Notwithstanding this practice, the Department acknowledges the Auditor’s finding that the absence of the ASO acknowledgment could allow someone to question whether a supervisory-level review occurred. Based on the recommendation of the Auditors, SCSD immediately modified the payroll approval process by requiring the shift commanders to sign, and the ASO to initial, the printed copies of the Time and Attendance Roster Forms that are filed in the daily folders, thus establishing clear evidence of their review and approval of overtime and time-off use.

Auditor’s Reply

Although SCSD asserts in its response that it follows the guidance in its ICP, we found that this was not always the case. Specifically, as noted above, for the correction officers in our sample, 38 (88%) were paid $17,734 for overtime that was not approved by an SCSD shift commander, and there was no evidence, including an email with the attached electronic roster, that the overtime had been reviewed by the assistant superintendent of operations. As a result, in OSA’s opinion, SCSD management cannot be certain that all the compensation provided to these correction officers on these days was appropriate. However, based on its response, SCSD is taking measures to address our concerns in this area.

Date published:	April 11, 2019