A decision to send home public works employees following a barbecue at the end of June resulted in the only finding in a recent state audit of Grays Harbor County according to a draft audit report.

The county saw no other findings and only four items listed in a draft management letter.

On June 30, the public works department heads held a barbecue for staff along with the county commissioners and some staff members from the Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s Office, the county Treasurer, and some staff from other departments. Following the barbecue, the commissioners briefly and informally agreed to allow the public works staff to take the rest of the afternoon off with pay as a morale booster.

In a letter to the commissioners immediately following the barbecue, county Auditor Vern Spatz accused the commissioners of violating the Open Public Meetings Act and said giving the employees the afternoon off with pay was a “gift of public funds.”

In essence, the state Auditor’s Office agreed with Spatz.

The draft of the accountability audit report states, “The leave was granted with the intention to boost morale, however, without a policy in place to allow this action, this paid leave is considered unallowable extra compensation.”

The state Auditor’s Office recommended the county “establish a bonus/incentive pay program with policies and procedures for awarding bonuses to employees.”

During the exit interview on Sept. 14, Commissioner Wes Cormier asked how that would work.

“So, as a policy maker, if we had passed a policy by us in order to give permission to us in order to give administrative time off, then we wouldn’t have received the finding?” Cormier asked.

“The fact that the decision was made without that policy already in place is what we took exception to,” Audit Manager Bryson Bristol said.

In response to the finding, the county wrote it acknowledged the Open Public Meetings Act violation, but also wrote it had not seen the paid time off as extra compensation.

“The idea was that they were granting administrative leave to the employees, some of which would have had less than an hour left to work if they had returned to their job site,” the county’s response states in the draft report. “The county did not know a policy would be needed as they believed they had the authority to grant administrative leave, since they are the policy makers. They did not see the leave as bonus or incentive pay. There seems to be other instances when administrative leave is acceptable and granted by administration where there is not a direct policy.”

The county commissioners plan to discuss the issue with union representatives during negotiations to ensure there is no confusion in the future, the response stated.

An estimate provided last week showed the county had spent between $4,000 and $4,800 in paid time off on June 30.

The State Auditor’s Office issued no findings for audits of financial statements and federal law and regulation compliance.

Management letter

A draft management letter also was included during the exit interview.

A management letter reports issues noted by the state Auditor’s Office which are not severe enough to be considered findings but also are not slight enough to be overlooked, Bristol explained.

Four issues were noted by the State Auditor’s Office in the management letter: Equipment Rental and Reserve Fund (ER&R), small assets, purchases and software documentation.

ER&R rates were not reviewed annually, the State Auditor’s Office noted, the billing was not on a monthly basis as required by state law and the funding didn’t have a policy establishing procedures.

For assets, the county had issues following policy, reviewing purchases and no formal procedures for tagging. A county policy states the frequency, but is not detailed when it comes to physical inventory of small assets.

Nine of 23 purchases tested by the state Auditor’s Office were not competitively bid out or exemptions were improperly used or not properly documented, the state Auditor’s Office wrote in the management letter.

The state Auditor’s Office also stated the county should have software documentation for in-house software, and a contingency plan should be in place in case the two county software developers are not available to address issues.

A discussion between the commissioners and county Auditor Spatz teetered on the brink of argument as they discussed communication and purview during the audit process.

“I feel that in a lot of ways we have been left out of the loop,” Commissioner and Chairwoman Vickie Raines said. “The budget director serves as the county’s audit liaison, and reports to the commissioners, and when you have an issue here with items, I think we need better communication.”

“We’re the policy board, so the liaison should be somebody who oversees our policy,” Cormier said.

Cormier noted a particular instance in which the state Auditor’s Office asked for a policy and the county’s liaison stated there was no applicable policy, but there was a policy and the commissioners could have saved everybody time through direct communication.

“By statute, the county Auditor’s Office is the liaison with the state Auditor’s Office,” Spatz told the commissioners.

He later provided the specific RCW.

“Everybody makes mistakes, and we’re the ones who are sitting at the table having to respond to all of this, so it’s important for us to make sure all of the departments are implementing the policies that we set forward,” Raines said. “It goes without saying that the communication and dialogue between the departments could be much better.”

All reports provided by the state Auditor’s Office during the exit interview were drafts. The final reports will be published online when completed.