Although the tested disbursements were for valid purposes, LDC officials did not always ensure they were properly authorized and supported.

District officials did not always comply with the District's procurement policy and seek competition for the purchase of goods and services not subject to competitive bidding.

District officials did not ensure IT systems were adequately secured and protected against unauthorized use, access and loss. Officials did not adopt a password security policy or manage the use of administrative accounts. As a result, the District has an increased risk of unauthorized use or access that could result in important data loss and a serious interruption in operations.

District officials did not adequately secure and protect the District's IT systems against unauthorized use, access and loss.

District officials developed a process to account for leave accruals and a system over payments for unused leave accruals that includes documentation of eligibility and reviews of calculations.

District officials did not develop a process to routinely evaluate the overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the transportation department's operations.

District officials did not adequately manage fuel purchases by seeking competition and did not audit fuel claims, as required.

The Board was not fully transparent in planning and could have improved its monitoring of the Project. As a result, total costs to complete the highway garage exceeded the maximum estimated costs by $372,318.

Although District officials restricted access to the student information application, they did not adequately secure access to the network and financial application.

District officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services or ensure claims were properly supported or for valid purposes.

The Board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations and cannot be assured all money raised was properly accounted for and deposited.

The Board did not ensure all disbursements complied with the procurement policy and claims were for a proper District purpose or adequately supported. Additionally, the Board did not provide adequate oversight to ensure the required AUDs were filed timely.

The Justices did not ensure all fines and fees were properly collected, recorded, deposited, reported and remitted in a timely and accurate manner.

Department officials did not ensure that financial activity was properly recorded and supported, and that money was safeguarded.

The District did not maximize Medicaid reimbursements by submitting claims for all eligible Medicaid services provided.

District officials did not properly monitor and account for 70 percent of the 60 fixed assets we examined, including computers, musical instruments and science equipment.

The TFLDC was formed to provide funding for and facilitate the construction of a wastewater treatment plant. We found collections and disbursements were generally in accordance with the sewer agreements, and the Board adhered to its bylaws.

Corporation officials did not provide adequate oversight of the revolving loan program. For the 15 active loans

For the 10 projects we reviewed, the Board appropriately evaluated the projects before approval. However, project monitoring efforts should be improved.

Officials did not establish adequate controls over network and financial application user accounts to prevent unauthorized use, access and/or loss. In addition to sensitive information technology (IT) control weaknesses which we communicated confidentially to officials.