NCJ Number
74662
Date Published
1979
Length
85 pages
Annotation
Auditors examined records in 105 Kansas counties to evaluate the January 1979 transfer of responsibility for paying nonjudicial personnel salaries from the county to the State.
Abstract
This inquiry was in response to concern by the legislature that some employees had been placed on the State payroll at higher salaries than they should have received under the 1978 law governing the transfer. Field work was conducted over a 3-week period in February 1979 when audit teams visited each county to review court budgets and personnel records. The audit found numerous instances of noncompliance with the relevant laws pertaining to the reorganization, based on interpretations of these laws by the Legislative Division of Post Audit. The legislation stated that for the State to assume payment for salaries, the 1978 district court budgets had to be submitted on the line-item by position basis and approved by county commissions. Positions not contained in these budgets could not be created at a later date, and no salary increases could be given that were not in the 1978 budget. The 10 counties failing to comply with these requirements accounted for nearly 60 percent of 1978 salary expenditures. consequently, auditors estimated that almost $510,000 of the first 1979 State monthly payroll totalling $801,000 consisted of payments which were not in compliance with the law. When auditors reconstructed the 10 county budgets and analyzed them as though they were in compliance, 6.8 percent of the first payroll was improper because of unauthrized positions and pay increases. The United Judicial Department disagreed with many of the audit's conclusions, particularly regarding interpretations of the law's intent, methods of identifying salaries in the budget, and approvals from county commissions. It considered the procedures for setting salaries at 1978 levels is advisory, not binding. Recommendations to correct the situation include revised legislation, improved payroll monitoring procedures by the United Judicial Department and the Division of Accounts and Reports, and a full investigation by the State's Attorney General. The appendixes contain district court budget instructions, February 1979 figures on unauthorized payroll expenditures, and agency responses to the draft audit report. Maps and tabular data are provided. (Author abstract modified)