|
County Refutes Controller's Computer Audit Review Finds Audit Flawed; Equipment Safe
Posted 1-4-07 Following a review of a recent County Controller audit of
Westmoreland County's computer equipment control system, several glaring
errors and omissions were revealed, calling into question the integrity of
the Controller's findings and exposing serious flaws in the audit
methodology used. The review of the December 21 audit report
was performed by the County's Information Systems Department at the request
of the County Commissioners. The review calls into question
the entirety of the audit findings, but more importantly, should ensure the
public that the County's computer inventory is accurate and that all
valuable computer assets are properly accounted for. The
County's entire inventory of more than 7,000 pieces of equipment is 99.9
percent accurate. "In a very short time we were able to
identify and resolve almost all of the so-called ‘problems' listed in the
audit – some of which by simply walking into a particular office to confirm
that the equipment was where our inventory system listed it," said David
Ridilla, Director of Information Technology, who led the review.
In the review of the audit, which alleged 176 findings, the County
identified several important defects: In some cases, auditors
simply did not know what they were looking for. There are 14 pieces of
equipment, including four copier/printers that are more than 30 cubic feet,
that were listed as "not found in the respective departments" in the audit,
yet the equipment is in fact where it should be. Thirty-four
of the 176 pieces of equipment listed in the audit (nearly 20 percent) were
moved or installed during the auditing period. Yet, the Controllers' office
declined an updated list from County Information Systems.
Terminology differences regarding disposed equipment – such as the
distinction between the labels "auction" and "retired" -- were not
reconciled in the audit, leading to inaccurate assumptions. This labeling
discrepancy made up more than 22 percent of the audit findings.
Also cited in the audit was equipment that was temporarily moved from
employees' desks to the technical services work area so that repairs could
be performed. Other simple errors in the audit skewed the
audit findings, including a mistaken observation of a printer in the wrong
building, listing some equipment twice, and the wrong identification of a
"missing" laptop. Of the 176 findings in audit, the County
did find justification in five. Three had incorrect serial numbers, and two
had different locations of equipment scheduled for disposal.
"I am confident in the accuracy of our inventory system," Ridilla said. “The
county's computer control system is not in 'disarray', as the audit findings
would lead some to believe. We are always working to improve our system of
controls. And the analysis of this audit proves that county taxpayers should
have total confidence that the county's computer equipment is properly
accounted for." |
