OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR - Denver · originated with exceptions noted in our audit of the ... This summary highlights the findings of this audit which are ... secure environment for

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR

DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION

ASSISTANT DEPUTY MANAGER FOR AIRPORT SECURITY

COMPLIANCE AUDIT PAYROLL AND LEAVE ACCOUNTING

JUNE 2006

Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor

The prudent stewardship of Denver’s finances, resources and financial records! We are also committed to improving accountability, efficiency, effectiveness and performance in city government. We will scrupulously

protect the taxpayer’s interests and work collaboratively with all concerned to improve our city and its government 1

City and County of Denver 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. 705 • Denver, Colorado 80202 • 720-913-5000, FAX 720-913-5247

www.denvergov.org/auditor Dennis J. Gallagher

Auditor

June 19, 2006 Mr. Turner West, Manager Department of Aviation City and County of Denver Dear Mr. West: Attached is the Auditor’s Office Internal Audit Division’s report of their audit of the Department of Aviation Operations division, Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security for the period January 2001 through December 2003. The purpose of the audit was to investigate improprieties related to time and leave accounting issues for the Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security. The audit focused on compliance with the personnel rules of the Career Service Authority and City rules and regulations. They also performed a review and evaluation of internal controls related to individual time accountability and payroll and leave accounting issues. The audit report contained herein is in conjunction with the audit of the Department of Aviation, Operations Section, Payroll and Leave Accounting, Compliance Audit issued on March 14, 2006. At the time of issuance for the Operations section, the Internal Audit Division was still investigating and testing several allegations related to this position as well as performing audit procedures identical to those applied in the Operations section audit. This audit report was delayed on the basis of the on-going inquiry and testing related to this position, the need to expedite the Operations section audit report, and the desire to segregate audit issues related to the Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security from the Operations section personnel. The Internal Audit Division did not perform audit tests or procedures on other employees of the Airport Security section since nothing came to their attention to justify expanding the audit scope. The audit revealed several violations of the Career Service Authority and City rules and regulations by this employee. Material weaknesses and internal control deficiencies were noted related to payroll and leave accounting for this employee identical to those reported in the Operations section audit. These compliance violations and control deficiencies are reported in the findings and recommendations contained in this report. I acknowledge your responses to key internal audit issues contained in both this audit report and our Operations section audit previously issued on March 14, 2006. Of particular importance is the issue of time accountability for exempt employees and the need to document their daily work attendance and hours to help prevent employee overpayments similar to those noted in this office’s two audits. I regret your policy decision to delete the badge history records for prior

Mr. Turner West June 19, 2006 Page Two

2

years and limit record retention to only six months and question the timing for such a decision with respect to our audits. I urge you to reevaluate our recommendations contained in both audits to implement the Kronos time reporting system for exempt employees as well as the non-exempt personnel in lieu of the badge access history system. I welcome a dialogue on this issue and invite you to provide a more current response on this issue or any issue contained in this report. If you have any questions, please call Mike Clark, Director of Internal Audit, at 720-913-5029.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor

DJG/kh cc: Honorable John Hickenlooper, Mayor

Honorable Members of City Council Members of Audit Committee Lauri Dannemiller, City Council Staff Director Cole Finegan, City Attorney Cheryl Cohen-Vader, Chief Deputy Manager of Aviation Beth Machann, City Controller Don Cordova, Personnel Director, CSA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3

Transmittal Letter 1

Table of Contents 3

Internal Auditor’s Report 4

Executive Summary 5

Background, Scope, Objective, and Methodology 6

Findings, Recommendations, and Responses 8

The prudent stewardship of Denver’s finances, resources and financial records! We are also committed to improving accountability, efficiency, effectiveness and performance in city government. We will scrupulously

protect the taxpayer’s interests and work collaboratively with all concerned to improve our city and its government. 4

City and County of Denver 201 West Colfax Ave., Dept. 705 • Denver, Colorado 80202 • 720-913-5000, FAX 720-913-5247

www.denvergov.org/auditor Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor

INTERNAL AUDITOR’S REPORT

We have completed a review and evaluation of internal controls and compliance audit of the Department of Aviation, Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security, for the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003. The purpose of the audit was: (1) to determine whether the Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security was in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Career Service Authority and the City and County of Denver; (2) to ascertain whether adequate administrative and internal controls were in place and effective with respect to payroll and leave accounting; (3) to perform detailed audit testing and inquiry as necessary; and, (4) to determine the extent and dollar amounts of any overpayments made to this employee. This audit originated with exceptions noted in our audit of the Operations section of the Department of Aviation issued on March 14, 2006. Both of these audits were included together in the Internal Audit Division’s Annual Audit Plan and are authorized pursuant to the City and County of Denver Charter, Article V, Part 2, Section 1, General Powers and Duties of Auditor. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance that internal accounting and administrative controls are adequate under the circumstances. We also reviewed operations for compliance with City rules and regulations. The audit procedures followed included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the payroll and leave accounting system along with relevant compliance issues. Our objectives were met in all areas except as noted in the findings contained in this report. We extend our appreciation to the personnel who assisted and cooperated with us during the audit. Internal Audit Division

Michael Clark, CPA Director of Internal Audit Date: June 19, 2006 Staff: Dick Wibbens, CPA, Audit Manager Philip Cummings, CPA, Audit Supervisor

DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION ASSISTANT DEPUTY MANAGER FOR AIRPORT SECURITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2003

5

This summary highlights the findings of this audit which are more fully described in the Findings, Recommendations, and Responses section beginning on page 8. The Findings, Recommendations, and Responses section also includes the responses of the Department of Aviation to the findings.

1. Unauthorized Absences – We determined the Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security (ADMAS) took 35.5 paid work days off without approved leave during the years 2001 through 2003. The employee owes a total of $12,170 for these unauthorized absences and collection by the Manager of Aviation is recommended. Additionally, we recommended appropriate disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal, in accordance with four separate Career Service Authority (CSA) rules related to this Finding No. 1 and in conjunction with Findings and Recommendations Nos. 2 and 3, below.

2. Failure to Disclose Personal Reimbursements – We noted the ADMAS failed to disclose reimbursements totaling $5,331 from an outside organization for two conference trips made in 2002 and 2003. Disclosures of this nature are required by the Denver Revised Municipal Code for each employee on their annual Financial Disclosure Statement form submitted to their appointing authority.

3. Use of City Vehicle – For the years 2001 through 2003, the ADMAS failed to submit monthly mileage reimbursement cards for 13 months, as required by Mayor’s Executive Order No. 25. We determined the employee owes the City a total of $612 for these exceptions and recommended the Manager of Aviation collect this amount in a timely manner.

4. Accounting for “Alternative Work Schedule” Hours – We found the ADMAS failed to “return” 21 hours “owed” the City related to the use of an alternative work schedule during weeks with a City holiday in accordance with CSA rules. The employee owes a total of $857 and it is recommended the Manager of Aviation collect this amount from the employee.

DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION ASSISTANT DEPUTY MANAGER FOR AIRPORT SECURITY BACKGROUND, SCOPE, OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY

FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2003

6

Background The Findings and Recommendations reported herein related to the Assistant Deputy Manager of Operations for Airport Security are in conjunction with our compliance audit report entitled Department of Aviation, Operations Section, Compliance Audit, Payroll and Leave Accounting which was issued on March 14, 2006. Several of the findings contained in this report are similar to those reported on Operations section personnel and came to our attention during and after the release of the Operations compliance audit. Prior to January 23, 2006, Airport Security was one of the sections within the Operations Division of the Department of Aviation. This section is responsible for providing a safe and secure environment for the public and employees at Denver International Airport. The responsibilities include working with the Transportation Security Administration for screening passengers and baggage, processing and issuing security badges for airport employees, and maintaining computerized badge history reports which reflect activity through designated access gates and points throughout the airport. Effective January 23, 2006, the co-Managers of the Department of Aviation instituted a reorganization which included creating a new division and position of Deputy Manager of Aviation for Public Safety. The new division and acting Deputy Manager will be responsible for Public Safety, Terminal Operations, Security, Badging, Emergency Response Team, Paramedics and coordination with the airport Denver Police unit. Prior to the reorganization, Airport Security employed approximately 21 full time employees and several on-call personnel. Subsequent to the reorganization, the number of personnel associated with the new Public Safety division is expected to significantly increase. Scope Our audit of the Department of Aviation’s (PeopleSoft fund 73810/org. 6000000) Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security section was for the approximate period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2003. In some situations, it was necessary to expand our audit testing to include certain transactions and events through March 2006. The scope of our audit focused on payroll and leave accounting transactions, employee financial disclosures, the use of City automobiles and purchase cards, and relevant compliance issues. This audit focused on specific issues, events, and transactions associated with the Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security and did not include other personnel employed in the Airport Security section. Objective The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security was in compliance with Career Service Authority and other City rules and regulations, maintained a sound administrative and internal control environment within the section, and to determine if this employee was appropriately paid for time worked and paid leave.

BACKGROUND, SCOPE, OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION

7

Methodology To meet the audit objectives, the following evidence gathering and analysis techniques were used including, but not limited to:

Documentation of current internal controls and an assessment of their adequacy. Interviews with key personnel within the Department of Aviation including the Assistant

Deputy Manager for Airport Security. Testing of payroll and leave transactions for the years 2001 through 2003. For the most

part, reliable payroll and leave source documents were not available to conduct detailed examinations. Therefore, “Badge History Records” from DIA Security were examined. These records reflect badge “swipes” by name at all designated access and egress gates within DIA. The reports record the time and location a badge is used at these points. In this case, our focus was on the employee’s first access gate at the beginning of their work day and the swipe at the last egress gate at the end of their day. With these reports, we could also determine whether an employee left and returned to DIA during their work day. The badge history reports served as an objective means for determining whether an employee reported to work at DIA and their daily “In and Out” for recording hours at work.

Verification of the agency’s compliance with applicable rules and regulations. Determination of amounts due the City.

DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION ASSISTANT DEPUTY MANAGER FOR AIRPORT SECURITY

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2003

8

1. Unauthorized Absences Our audit of the badge history records for the Assistant Deputy Manager for Airport Security (ADMAS) reveals this employee was absent for full scheduled work days without any evidence of authorized leave for the years 2001 through 2003 as follows:

• 2001 – We noted 9 incidents where there were no entries for the entire day on the employee’s badge history record. Another half day absence is associated with an additional two day out of state trip for personal reasons according to the employee. The associated overpayments for the 9.5 days of unauthorized absences total $3,249 for this calendar year.

• 2002 – We identified 10 unauthorized absences for the ADMAS including 7 Fridays for

this year. For two of these days, the employee produced “comp time” slips signed by the Deputy Manager of Operations despite earlier statements comp time was not allowed or practiced in the Airport Security section. Overpayments related to these unauthorized absences total $3,413.

• 2003 – We noted 16 unauthorized absences for this year including a five day trip to

Hawaii to attend a seminar which was paid for by a professional organization. There is no evidence this trip was authorized or approved by her supervisor or Department of Aviation management. Further, the trip and reimbursement costs of nearly $3,000 paid by the outside organization were not included in the employee’s annual Financial Disclosure Statement as detailed in Finding No. 2. The overpayments to this individual for the 16 unauthorized absences total $5,508.

Recommendation Career Service Authority (CSA) rule 10-11 Standard Work Week requires employees work a five day forty hour week unless an alternative work week is approved by the Personnel Director. This employee utilized an approved “flex schedule” which altered the standard work week but still required the employee to account for 40 hours in this week. CSA rule 11-10 defines leave as any authorized absence during regularly scheduled working hours that has been approved by proper authority. The employee is responsible for initiating the leave request in advance, except for emergency sick, and submitting the leave document to their supervisor for approval. The approved leave slip is then sent to the payroll section for posting to the leave history report. For the combined 35 instances noted during 2001 through 2003, the employee neither reported to work nor submitted leave slips for approval as required by CSA rules. Therefore, we assess the ADMAS a total of $12,170 for the 35.5 days of unauthorized absences and recommend the Manager of the Department of Aviation collect this amount in a timely manner.

FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION

9

Also, in conjunction with Findings No. 2 and No. 3 in this report, we recommend the Manager of Aviation initiate appropriate disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal, in accordance with the following Career Service Rules:

• CSA rule 16-50(A)(3) for “Dishonesty, including…false reporting of work hours;…using official position or authority for personal profit or advantage; or any other act of dishonesty not specifically listed in this paragraph.”

• CSA rule 16-50(A)(13) for “Unauthorized absence from work…”

• CSA rule 16-50(A)(17) for “Conduct which violates the Charter of the City and County

of Denver or the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver” with respect to Finding No. 2, Failure to Disclose Personal Reimbursements.

• CSA rule 16-50(A)(18) for “Conduct which violates an executive order” with respect to

Finding No. 3, Use of City Vehicle. Our audit noted the Department of Aviation does not require exempt employees to keep a daily record of hours worked or even document whether they reported to work at all. In fact, the Department of Aviation recently instituted a policy to delete the “badge history records” for past years and only retain this data base on a six month basis. This data base provided an audit trail for determining whether an employee was working at DIA on any given day and to a great extent, the number of hours the employee was present at the airport. In effect, Aviation’s decision to delete the badge history records eliminated a useful audit procedure to determine if an exempt employee was actually working for the compensation received on their paycheck. Therefore, we recommend the Manager of Aviation institute a policy of public accountability by requiring exempt employees to use the electronic time keeping system to record their time and attendance on a daily basis. Department of Aviation’s Response “The Department of Aviation is in agreement with the City Auditor’s Office that there were unauthorized absences for whole days for this employee. However, we disagree with the number of days noted in the audit based on review of documents provided by the employee. We have adjusted the days in question based upon our review and these days have been or will be addressed with the employee. “The Department of Aviation will be implementing a new Aviation Department Standard Policy and Procedure entitled Pay and Leave Management in the near future. The policy will detail all pay and leave management requirements for Aviation Department employees and compliance will be monitored to ensure accountability for any missing time during a work week. “Although the Auditor has recommended disciplinary action for the employee involved in this audit, we respectfully note that in Career Service Authority (CSA) Rule 16 the decision for


10

disciplinary action is left to the Appointing Authority (the Department of Aviation). In fairness to the employee, the Department of Aviation will review the audit issues and then determine what actions are necessary. “The Department of Aviation will not discuss confidential personnel matters involving possible disciplinary actions. However, we want to assure the Auditor that we are deeply concerned with these issues, and are taking them very seriously.” 2. Failure to Disclose Personal Reimbursements During our audit of time accountability, we noted there was no badge access activity for the ADMAS during the period December 29, 2002 through January 13, 2003. Audit inquiry and documents revealed the following:

• On December 10, 2002, the ADMAS purchased airfare to Hawaii for $1,027 and a hotel advance for $94 using her City travel credit card. The next day, the employee used the City travel card to purchase an airfare ticket for her husband for the same amount.

• The ADMAS used a combination of vacation, holiday, “flex day” and days off to account

for her time from December 29, 2002 through January 5, 2003. We found no evidence to explain the five day absence from work during the period January 6 – 10 or to substantiate payment for salary during these five days. The badge history records indicate the employee returned to work on Monday, January 13.

• Records indicate the employee used the City travel card again to pay a hotel bill in

Hawaii on January 10th which amounted to $1,472.

• The employee did not seek reimbursement from the City for her airfare and hotel accommodation expenses charged to her City travel card. Rather, the employee was reimbursed a total of $2,972 from the Association of American Airport Executives (AAAE), a professional organization sponsoring the conference in Hawaii. The employee, in turn, paid the credit card company for her expenses.

The employee failed to disclose any part of the $2,972 expense reimbursement by this organization on her annual employee Financial Disclosure statement for the reporting year 2003 as required by City ordinance. Also, we found no documentation indicating the conference, travel days, and the unaccounted for five days of paid time off was submitted for approval and authorized by her supervisors. Additionally, use of the City travel card is restricted to City travel and conferences which are approved by the employee’s supervisors and management. Even if this particular conference was approved as City related business, there are no allowances for using the City travel card to pay personal expenses for an employee’s spouse. Our audit noted a similar situation for the calendar year 2002. In this instance, the employee used her own credit card to pay for her travel expenses to another AAAE sponsored conference


11

in Hawaii. The employee was granted 40 hours of “administrative leave” by her supervisor for the five day conference. However, the ADMAS failed to disclose the fact she was reimbursed, once again, by the AAAE in the amount of $2,359 on her annual Financial Disclosure statement for the reporting year of 2002. Also, the employee omitted another conference trip to Dallas on her Financial Disclosure statement for this year which was reimbursed by the City. The two situations detailed above reveal a lack of personal accountability and compliance with the City’s financial disclosure ordinance on the part of the employee. Also, there are related internal control deficiencies related to time and leave accounting and travel expense reimbursements within the Department of Aviation. First, Aviation’s practice does not consistently require employees to submit requests approving training leave from their supervisors when attending seminars or conferences in accordance with Career Service Authority (CSA) rules. Also, Aviation apparently does not require supervisory or managerial approval for business travel unless the related costs are to be paid by the City. Consequently, an employee can be absent from work without any documented authorization and still be paid as noted in the 2003 trip to Hawaii. Second, the employee’s failure to disclose travel expense reimbursements from another organization provides an opportunity for the employee to submit requests for reimbursement to both the third party and the City for the same trip. Aviation personnel who approve and process travel expense documents must be aware of whether an employee received any reimbursements from another party for the same expenses. Therefore, it is imperative employees document all gifts and amounts received from external organizations on the annual financial disclosure statement and have this reviewed by personnel approving all travel requests and expense reimbursements. Recommendation The stated intent of the financial disclosure provision under Section 2-70 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code is to ensure access to information that will help prevent any City officer, employee, or candidate for office from unfairly using City offices for personal advantage and to foster public trust. The Code requires each employee to file a report with their appointing authority no later than August 1 of each year for the preceding calendar year. Employees are required to list “…travel expenses received from any public entity during the preceding calendar year” in addition to other reportable items. In conjunction with Recommendation No. 1, we recommend the Manager of Aviation initiate appropriate disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal, in accordance with CSA rule 16-50(A)(17) “Conduct which violates the …Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver.” Independent of the recommendation regarding discipline above, we recommend the ADMAS file amended Financial Disclosure statements with the Manager of Aviation for the years 2002 and 2003. Also, we recommend the Manager of Aviation mandate all travel requests be approved by an employee’s immediate supervisor regardless of whether the travel related expenses are


12

reimbursed by the City, another organization, or an individual. Further, we recommend the Manager of Aviation require all employees request supervisory or management approval for training leave when the employee must be absent from their regular work station for conferences or training in accordance with CSA rule 11-110 Training Leave. Additionally, our audit disclosed the employee received a $3,000 reimbursement from the same organization for another conference in Hawaii for the approximate period January 5 -14, 2005. We recommend the ADMAS comply with the City rules and include this trip and travel expense reimbursement amounts on Financial Disclosure statements for the calendar year 2005 due on August 1, 2006. With respect to the use of the City travel card, we recommend the employee comply with all rules regarding appropriate use and expenditures for this program. Specifically, we recommend the ADMAS refrain from charging any personal or family related travel expenses regardless of how or who eventually reimburses the employee for these costs. Department of Aviation’s Response “The Department of Aviation is in agreement that there were inadvertent omissions made when the Financial Disclosure Statements (FDS) for the years 2002 and 2003 were prepared. Amended FDS were submitted by the employee on May 15, 2006. The employee has stated that the procedure used to prepare the FDS has been amended so that omissions such as these do not occur in the future. The Department of Aviation will provide training to all employees to ensure completeness of the airport employees’ FDS in the future. “Additionally, the employee has stated the purchase of the employee’s spouse’s ticket on a City travel card was caused by instructions not being followed correctly by the ticketing airline. According to the employee, the credit card numbers for both the City travel card and a personal credit card were given to the airline to purchase tickets for her and her husband, respectively. However, the airline made the error of charging her husband’s ticket to the City travel card instead of the personal credit card as requested. The employee noted that she paid the personal charges on the City travel card as soon as possible once she realized the error had occurred. This error was a one time occurrence and the employee has stated that in the future she will ensure that his mix-up does not occur again. “For the five day work period of January 6 through January 10, 2003, the employee has provided an agenda for a conference that she was attending during this time period and a trip report that was submitted to senior management upon the employee’s return (indicates approval was obtained from supervisor). The employee has agreed that she inadvertently did not submit the required Administrative Leave slip for this trip. “Again, as noted in Finding #1, although the Auditor has recommended disciplinary action for the employee involved in this audit, we respectfully note that in CSA Rule 16 the decision for disciplinary action is left to the Appointing Authority (the Department of Aviation). In fairness to the employee, the Department of Aviation will review the audit issues and then determine what actions are necessary.”


13

3. Use of City Vehicle Our audit included a test of reimbursements for the ADMAS’s use of a City vehicle to commute from her home to work each day; a round trip of 80 miles. Executive Order No. 25 requires the employee to complete and sign “mileage reimbursement cards” which denote commute status on a daily basis. The reimbursement is $3 per day and the cards are supposed to be submitted to the Aviation payroll department each month. The reimbursement to the City is effected by a payroll deduction from the employee. Our test of commuting reimbursements for the years 2001 through 2004 noted the following:

• 2001 – The employee failed to submit the monthly reimbursement card for one of the 12 months. Our audit determined the employee owes the City a net amount of $37.

• 2002 – For this year, the ADMAS failed to submit and pay monthly reimbursement fees

for one of the 12 months. The associated amount owed the City is $45.

• 2003 – The employee failed to submit and pay monthly reimbursement fees for six of the 12 months. The amount owed the City for this year is $264.

• 2004 – For the year 2004, the ADMAS failed to submit and pay monthly reimbursement

fees for three of the 12 months. For two other months, cards were submitted to and entered by the Payroll department but the system failed to effect the deduction. The employee did not attempt to correct that deductions were not taken from her paycheck. Therefore, our audit determined the employee owes the City a net amount of $266.

Recommendation Based upon our findings, the ADMAS owes a total of $612 for the 13 months she did not submit reimbursement cards or pay the required fees through the payroll process for the use of a City vehicle for commuting purposes. We recommend the Manager of Aviation collect this amount in a timely manner. In conjunction with Recommendations No. 1 and No. 2, we recommend the Manager of Aviation initiate disciplinary action, including suspension or dismissal, in accordance with CSA rule 16-50(A)(18) for “Conduct which violates an executive order.” Independent of our recommendation regarding discipline, we recommend the employee comply with the requirements of Executive Order No. 25 and submit the mileage reimbursement cards to her supervisor each month. Alternatively, the employee can relinquish the use of the City vehicle for her daily commute. The employee should also reconcile her payroll deductions each month to ensure the correct reimbursement amount was actually deducted.” Department of Aviation’s Response “The Department of Aviation is in agreement that there were months where the Mileage Summary Sheet prepared by the employee did not get processed by the Payroll Group. These months have been or are being processed by the payroll Group. Inquiry has revealed that the


14

current procedure does not provide adequate control to ensure that the Payroll Group is notified when an employee is assigned a City vehicle for regular use, or to ensure the completeness of the Mileage Summary Sheets received and processed for those employees. The Payroll Group is coordinating work with other sections of the Airport as necessary to establish a comprehensive process that will provide the internal controls necessary to ensure compliance with Executive Order #25 - Vehicle Use Policies. “Again, as noted in Finding #1, although the Auditor has recommended disciplinary action for the employee involved in this audit, we respectfully note that in CSA Rule 16 the decision for disciplinary action is left to the Appointing Authority (the Department of Aviation). In fairness to the employee, the Department of Aviation will review the audit issues and then determine what actions are necessary.”

4. Accounting for “Alternative Work Schedule” Hours Our audit of time accountability noted the ADMAS failed to account for hours “owed” the City related to her alternative work schedule of 9 hours per day for weeks in which a holiday occurs. According to CSA rules, the holiday benefit is 8 hours and the employee “owes” the City 1 hour whenever they take off the holiday which falls on their regularly scheduled 9 hour work day. The employee can “return” the 1 hour through the use of vacation leave, leave without pay, or working another hour during that same work week. Based upon our audit procedures, we determined the ADMAS owes the City a total of $857 for failure to return 21 hours for the years 2001 through 2003 as follows:

• 2001 - The employee did not return a total of 8 hours and owes the City $318.

• 2002 - For this year, the ADMAS failed to return a total of 8 hours with an associated amount due the City of $330.

• 2003 - During this year, the employee owes the City $209 for 5 incidents where she

failed to return the required hours due the City. Recommendation Based upon our audit tests, we assess the ADMAS a total of $857 for the 21 hours owed the City related to her alternative work schedule. We recommend the Manager of Aviation collect this amount in a timely manner. Additionally, in conjunction with Finding and Recommendation No. 1, we recommend the Manager of Aviation require all employees, including exempt employees, utilize the electronic time keeping system available at the airport and document their actual hours worked on a daily basis. Unless there is a daily accounting for hours worked, there is no means to verify whether an employee can substantiate claims they worked the additional hour due the City during the work week.


15

Also, we recommend the employee comply with the CSA rules governing the alternative work schedule during a work week containing a holiday by submitting vacation or leave without pay slips or documenting when she worked the extra hour. Alternatively, the employee can utilize the standard 8 hours per day, 5 days a week for CSA employees and thereby eliminate the need to “return” hours associated with alternative work schedules. Department of Aviation’s Response “The Department of Aviation’s Internal Audit did not conduct an internal review of this employee’s alternative work schedule hours because the employee does not have any schedules documenting hours worked to review. The employee has stated that she starts and end most work days in the Terminal (parks curbside for 30-90 minutes to complete work) where no badging is required. “However, it should be noted that the Department of Aviation disagrees with the City Auditor’s Office use of the security badge history reports as a time measurement system during their review regarding this finding. This issue was addressed in the City Auditor’s DIA Operations Payroll and Leave Accounting Compliance audit that was issued March 14, 2006. As noted in our response to the Operations audit, the badge history records are not intended to be used as a time measurement system, but instead are only used to access secured areas of the airport. “However, the Department of Aviation will review the CSA rules that govern holidays with the managers/supervisors at the airport to ensure adherence to these rules by all airport employees.”

Documents

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR - Denver · originated with exceptions noted in our audit of the ... This summary highlights the findings of this audit which are ... secure environment for