In a recent government meeting, officials discussed the management of over 22,000 pieces of equipment owned by the city, emphasizing the importance of tracking high-value and sensitive items. The city utilizes an asset management system called ServiceNow to maintain records of these assets, which are categorized into two main groups: fixed assets, valued at $5,000 and above, and controlled non-capitalized assets, commonly referred to as sensitive items.

During the meeting, it was revealed that only 261 of the 22,000 items are classified as fixed assets, representing a total value of $5 million. The sensitive items category includes lower-cost items deemed theft-prone or containing protected information, such as laptops. Each department is responsible for identifying and maintaining a list of sensitive items, while the IT department oversees all IT hardware.

The audit findings highlighted several critical issues regarding asset tracking and verification. Firstly, the IT department lacks a clear labeling system to differentiate controlled assets from non-controlled items within the asset management system. This oversight complicates the verification process and raises concerns about whether all controlled assets are being appropriately monitored.

Secondly, the absence of documented procedures for verifying the location and status of controlled assets was noted. Currently, asset verification relies on handheld barcode scanners, but many items have outdated timestamps or lack verification records altogether. The audit recommended that the IT department establish comprehensive procedures for asset verification, ensuring that each controlled asset is checked at least annually.

Lastly, discrepancies were found in the asset reports submitted to the finance department. A significant portion of fixed assets—34%, valued at $2 million—was reported as unaccounted for. Additionally, the sensitive items report included an excessive number of low-cost items, which the IT management later acknowledged did not accurately reflect the sensitive items requiring inventory control.

To address these issues, the audit proposed several recommendations, including the development of clear labeling criteria for controlled assets, the establishment of documented verification procedures, and improved supervisory review processes for asset reports. These measures aim to enhance compliance with city policies and improve the overall efficiency of asset management within the city.