Nutrition Products Limited 71. An audit of the accounting records and financial transactions of the captioned company for the year under review revealed a generally satisfactory state of affairs. However, the following shortcomings were observed:

(a) The latest bank reconciliation statements for its five accounts included several discrepancies which had remained unresolved for lengthy periods. It was recommended that appropriate corrective actions should be effected without delay. The company subsequently advised that this matter was being attended to.

(b) A documented staff loan policy, approved by the Board and the

Ministry of Finance, was not in place. It was also noted that contrary to the guide-lines issued by the Ministry of Finance, no interest was charged on loans granted, neither was there any indication that the loans were secured. I am subsequently advised that all staff loans/advances had been suspended pending approval of a policy by the Board and the Ministry of Finance and Planning.

ST. JOSEPHS TEACHERS COLLEGE 72. An audit of the captioned institution revealed the following:

(i) Internal Control Weaknesses

The stipulated control records for items of furniture and equipment were not maintained. There were also long delays in the lodgement of cash collected.

(ii) Outstanding Annual Returns

Annual returns for statutory salary deductions were not submitted for the periods beyond the 1997 calendar year. This could adversely affect employees access to certain benefits. It was recommended that the filing of annual returns should be brought up to date.

(iv) Contractors Levy

Contractors levy of $401,580 was not deducted from the amounts paid on contracts thereby violating the Contractors Levy Act. It was recommended that appropriate corrective action should be taken.

23

Page 93 Compendium of a Review of Aspects of Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica

(PCJ) and a Comprehensive Audit of Petrojam Limited December 2018

This page was intentionally left blank

Auditor General’s Department – Information Technology Audit Report of FSL 15

Table 1: Employment contracts without MoFPS prior approval 8

Post

Total Annual Emoluments

Director of Finance and Planning 6,116,124.32

IT Consultant 4,849,562.00

Manager, Application Engineering 4,170,000.00

Software Engineering Project Lead 4,287,062.00

Director, Human Resources & Administration 3,903,102.32

Department Head-ISU 5,682,563.00

ICT Project Manager 4,732,500.00

TOTAL 33,740,913.64

2.11 Furthermore, we also observed where at least twenty-five (25) other individuals were engaged to posts that were not on FSL’s approved establishment resulting in unapproved expenditure of approximately $43M per annum. Table 2: Employment in Unapproved Posts

8

Division No. Of Unapproved Posts

Total Annual Emoluments

E-Government 4 6,481,349.28

HR & Administration 11 12,754,125.52

Software Engineering 6 12,560,395.92

Technical Services 4 11,245,609.28

TOTAL 25 43,041,480.00

2.12 FSL has failed to comply with its own human resources policy as well as guidelines from the

Ministry+of+Finance">Ministry of Finance and the Public Service, effectively resulting in substantial amounts of unapproved expenditure. The management of Fiscal Services Limited should therefore take immediate steps to have these matters regularized through the Ministry with responsibility for the Public Service and ensure that going forward, the company complies with its human resources policy and the GoJ guidelines.

FSL Fails To Comply With Its Personnel Clearance Procedures

2.13 Typically, personnel clearance procedures in most organizations include individual background checks in relation to criminal convictions, past employer and reference verifications as well as confirmation of certificates of qualifications submitted by current/prospective employees. FSL adopts these procedures as part of its employment screening process and we conducted tests to determine the extent of compliance by the entity.

2.14 We observed 41 cases where copies of qualifications were not present on the employee’s personal file to substantiate their credentials. We were therefore unable to verify whether these employees satisfied FSL’s qualification criteria. Furthermore, there is no evidence that FSL took the necessary steps to determine whether these individuals actually possessed the requisite qualifications claimed in accordance with its Human Resources Policy. The management should ensure that it complies with its personnel clearance

8 Compiled and analyzed from data provided by FSL.

7 Auditor General’s Department Performance Audit Follow-Up – National Environment & Planning Agency September 2016

Part One

Part One Introduction

Overview of NEPA 1.1 Jamaica’s Vision 2030 National Development Plan identified, as important issues and challenges,

uncontrolled and disorderly growth of urban areas caused in part by underdeveloped rural areas and weaknesses in planning systems. Accordingly, a long-term action plan was articulated in Vision 2030, which identified key strategies, to be prioritised over a three-year period ending in 2012, geared towards ensuring sustainable management and use of environmental and natural resources. These included the development of efficient and effective governance structures for environmental management, the creation of appropriate framework for sustainability planning and the management of all forms of waste.

1.2 The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) is an Executive Agency of the Government of Jamaica that became operational on April 1, 2001. NEPA was founded to carry out the technical (functional) and administrative mandate of three statutory bodies "the Natural Resources & Conservation, Authority (NRCA), the Town & Country Planning Authority (TCPA), and the Land Development & Utilisation Commission (LDUC)". Its mandate is to protect the environment and promote sustainable development.

1.3 NEPA is organized into six divisions with the following seven core functions:

18

Section 2:

Executive Summary

Summary makes recommendations as to the corrective measures which should be pursued.

2.1.4 The Committee therefore plays a critical role in helping to ensure that

appropriate action is taken on the findings of the Auditor General. During the period March to December 2012, the Committee examined the Auditor General’s Annual Report for the financial year 2010-2011 as well as other special and performance audit reports. Scope of the Audit

2.1.5 The AuGD’s major aim is promoting accountability, transparency and efficiency in government operations. This will necessitate a change in stewardship and how public officials manage government resources. Our subsequent recommendations are aimed at providing management with information to enable them to address weaknesses and improve their systems.

2.1.6 The audits of most Ministries, Departments, Executive Agencies and public bodies for the 2011-2012 financial year consisted of examinations, inquiries and investigations to enable assessment of the adequacy of the systems of internal control over the major areas of revenue and expenditure. It also included obtaining the information and explanations considered necessary for certifying financial statements submitted. Additional audit emphasis was applied to those areas of governmental activity where the internal control was weak, others which had been prone to problems in the past, new programmes and areas of general public interest. Follow-up work was also done to ascertain what action had been taken on previous audit observations and recommendations.

2.1.7 Several programmes and projects were selected for special audits aimed at assessing whether adequate planning had been done, proper management control systems instituted and whether the programmes and projects were achieving their intended objectives. A number of performance and information systems audits were also conducted during the course of the year. The computer systems were audited to determine whether they were proving to be effective management tools. In all instances a risk based audit methodology was applied. The overriding intent of the audits was to contribute to improvement in the management of the public sector and to promote savings for the taxpayers.

Contents of this Report

2.1.8 This report summarizes several matters of concern emanating from our 2011-

2012 review. More detailed comments on the points mentioned, and recommendations as to the corrective measures considered necessary, were communicated to Accounting Officers, Principal Receivers of Revenue and other heads of agencies by way of audit queries, reports, and other memoranda. Where appropriate the comments and reactions of those officers to my findings are indicated.