Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fleet Management Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auditors find dozens of fleet-inventory errors; staff and departments push for systems fix
Summary
The county auditor's office reported 97 errors across the county—s New World ERP asset listing and 53 errors in the HR insurance listing, citing VIN and data-entry problems. Auditors recommended a common vehicle-inventory database, updated procedures, and staff training; finance and HR described differing system purposes and pledged follow-up.
Porfia Lara, a staff auditor presenting on behalf of the Kane County auditor, told the Finance and Budget Committee on June 25 that the office found substantial discrepancies in county fleet records and recommended a consolidated inventory system and improved procedures.
"We encountered 97 errors within the New World ERP asset listing report," Lara said, citing duplicate or incorrect vehicle identification numbers (VINs) as the most common problem. The auditors used departmental vehicle lists, auction reports and HR insurance lists as baselines for cross-checks and found 53 errors in the insurance list, Lara said.
The audit examined the County—s New World ERP asset listing, vehicle-auction reports, HR vehicle-insurance listings and the FleetMan vehicle-management system. Lara reported that FleetMan had been introduced as a real-time inventory tool but that the Department of Building Management had discontinued its use, leaving gaps in fleet tracking.
The auditors recommended the county consider (1) establishing a common countywide vehicle inventory database, (2) developing a comprehensive countywide policy with clear departmental responsibilities for maintaining fleet records, (3) correcting existing ERP asset-listing errors (the auditor—s office provided a vehicles-correction report), and (4) training personnel who enter fleet data.
Finance director Kathy Hopkinson told the committee the apparent discrepancies partly reflect different purposes for the records: "The finance department tracks assets for capital accounting; HR tracks vehicles for insurance; other offices track them for fuel and maintenance," Hopkinson said. She added that the finance asset-management system is updated annually and is not maintained as a real-time, online inventory. HR, she said, refreshes its lists periodically and finance often stores only the last few VIN digits because full VINs are not necessary for capitalization purposes.
Several committee members took strong exception to the audit—s tone. Board member Dale Berman told the auditor—s representative he took "enormous offense" at a public report stating "a ton of errors" and urged departmental heads to collaborate to reconcile systems before reporting to the committee. Other members asked why 97 errors were reported while only 53 appear on a subsequent page of the auditor—s presentation and requested a fuller explanation.
Hopkinson said the finance department had submitted a formal response to the audit and that the auditors— office had attached that response to its report. She and audit staff agreed to follow up with department heads and to work offline with the auditors to reconcile the data and correct the asset listing.
The auditor—s office noted that HR uses a blanket insurance approach that mitigates insurance risk while the lists contain inaccuracies. The county faces operational risk if fleet records are not aligned for budgeting, insurance and replacement decisions; the audit recommended corrective action and training to reduce future data-entry errors.
Committee members requested a more detailed reconciliation and a meeting with the department heads who manage fleet assets before the next committee meeting.
Ending: The auditors provided recommended next steps and a correction report to finance; the committee asked staff to correct the ERP asset list, work with HR to reconcile the insurance listing and bring back a reconciliation plan and timeline.
