Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Payroll Accounts Payable topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Osage County commissioners press for fixes after months of payroll and accounts‑payable errors
Summary
Commissioners and staff described recurring payroll discrepancies, missing vouchers and credit‑card bill routing problems that have produced late notices and duplicate‑payment risk. The commission asked staff for greater transparency, proposed hiring a payroll specialist outside the clerk's office, and placed legal advice about payroll and AP on the agenda for executive session.
Presiding county officials opened a broader conversation about payroll and accounts‑payable problems that staff and employees said have persisted since at least 2021. A county employee told the commission that pay stubs and the county payroll records (ADP) do not match and that payments have posted to employees’ bank accounts on different dates than the payroll system shows, producing confusion and delinquency notices.
Staff described a multi‑month transition and a manual import process that has forced them to hand‑enter gross wages and created compounding errors. Commissioners and department directors said the loss of voucher‑level detail — the paper or electronic voucher that formerly showed which department signed off on a bill — has reduced their ability to detect misapplied charges before payment.
“Once it’s processed, that’s the only time you guys are going to review it, unless you kind of do an audit,” one county adviser said, describing the legal and administrative limits on post‑payment review. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized the risk of duplicate payments when some vendor charges are paid by credit card and others are processed through vouchers and the general ledger.
Several commissioners reported that multiple audits since 2021 flagged weaknesses that remain unaddressed. One presiding official pressed for structural change: commissioners should consider hiring a payroll specialist who would report to the commission rather than sit inside the clerk’s office, and department heads should have direct access to budgetary reports to identify misapplied invoices sooner.
County staff acknowledged communication gaps with the payroll vendor and said they are working to reconcile June and subsequent months, but that process requires time. Commissioners described options including replacing the third‑party payroll vendor, centralizing voucher review, and improving the cycle timing so commission review can occur before payment.
The commission also voted to add an executive session on attorney‑client privilege to receive legal advice about payroll and accounts‑payable issues. After the recess and return from executive session the meeting record shows no formal action taken in that closed meeting; commissioners said they would follow up with staff and continue work on internal controls.
Next steps identified by the commission included restoring voucher visibility for commissioners, asking the county’s broker and vendors for clearer report schedules, and exploring the creation of a payroll specialist position or alternative oversight model. No specific hiring decision or budget appropriation was made at the Oct. 7 meeting.
