Coral Gables Finance Department Audit–Symptoms of Mismanagement and Indifference

October 23, 2010 Leave a comment

The Finance Department of the city of Coral Gables was treated in an article in the Coral Gables Gazette on September.

Also, in a letter to the CGGazette, a former candidate for commissioner calls for the resignation of the Finance Department head.

The Finance Department problems are clearly revealed in the recently concluded report of the internal auditor of the city of Coral Gables.  The audit process was initiated in 2009, a first round of comments and recommendations was submitted for review and responded to by the Finance Department.  Subsequently, the city’s Internal Auditor prepared rebutal statements for unfulfilled recommendations and submitted the final report to management in September 2010.

The internal functional review of operations by the city of Coral Gables Chief Compliance Auditor (who works for the city manager)  confirms

  • dramatic dysfunctional management oversight ofoperations and control over the city budget, income and expenditures;
  • a persistent failure to review and balance accounts on time and correctly;
  • incomplete standard financial controls to avoid possible misuse or malversion of funds;
  • incomplete department-wide  information coverage and access via the EDEN software;
  • serious deficiencies in communications between management and staff and among departments;
  • defects in the EDEN financial module that the Finance Department hasn’t resolved;
  • consistent failure of management to supervise and give oversight to accounting review and information flows;
  • inadequate oversight over maintain current and consistent information flows among departments;
  • lack of efficient, integrated use of the IT systems of the city, among many others.

One may conclude that there is a top down management culture and weak communications within the Finance Department among staff and supervisors. The EDEN accounting software is incomplete, not fully applied and subject to incomplete supervision by the IT Department and the Finance Department supervisors.  The audit raised claims by both departments that the other is to blame for the break down in accounting.  This shifting of blame has led to an obvious failure to communicate from bottom to top between the two departments.

There are too many issues to discuss in a single posting and I hope to expand on this in coming days.

Filed under Coral Gables, Finance, Management

Language Abuse

October 23, 2010 2 Comments

For the Miami Herald to state in its headline that employment information is “mixed” is bordering on the ridiculous.

The unemployment situation in South Florida is terrible, about the same for many weeks and showing no signs of improving.  Let’s see what they say below the headline.

The federal government does make a seasonal calculation for Miami-Dade, one of the country’s largest local economies, and the report wasn’t encouraging. The federal numbers released Friday showed unemployment inching up in Miami-Dade, with the jobless rate climbing from 12.7 percent in August to 12.8 percent in September.

via South Florida unemployment figures mixed – Business Breaking News – MiamiHerald.com.

Filed under Economy, Miami-Dade County

Constitutional Amendment No. 8: Collins Center for Public Policy

October 21, 2010 Leave a comment

AT A GLANCE: AMENDMENT 8

Sponsor/Originator: Florida Legislature

Title on Ballot: Revision of the class size requirements

for public schools

Official Summary: The Florida Constitution currently

limits the maximum number of students assigned

to each teacher in public school classrooms in the

following grade groupings: for prekindergarten through

grade 3, 18 students; for grades 4 through 8, 22

students; and for grades 9 through 12, 25 students.

Under this amendment, the current limits on the

maximum number of students assigned to each

teacher in public school classrooms would become

limits on the average number of students assigned per

class to each teacher, by specified grade grouping, in

each public school. This amendment also adopts new

limits on the maximum number of students assigned

to each teacher in an individual classroom as follows:

for prekindergarten through grade 3, 21 students; for

grades 4 through 8, 27 students; and for grades 9

through 12, 30 students. This amendment specifies

that class size limits do not apply to virtual classes,

requires the Legislature to provide sufficient funds to

maintain the average number of students required by

this amendment, and schedules these revisions to take

effect upon approval by the electors of this state and to

operate retroactively to the beginning of the 2010-2011

school year.

Arguments for: The cost to implement the current

requirements is simply too high in today’s poor

economy. The state can’t afford to build more

classrooms and hire more teachers. This amendment

would provide needed flexibility that does not exist in

the Constitution as amended in 2002.

Arguments against: The state’s voters made it clear

in 2002 that they wanted to limit class sizes. Smaller

classes make a better learning environment.

Filed under Florida

Constitutional Amendment No. 5 and No. 6: Collins Center for Policy Policy

October 20, 2010 Leave a comment

AT A GLANCE: AMENDMENT 5

Sponsor/Originator: FairDistrictsFlorida.org

Title on Ballot: Standards for Legislature to follow in

legislative redistricting

Official Summary: Legislative districts or districting

plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an

incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be

drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal

opportunity to participate in the political process and

elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be

contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must

be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and

where feasible must make use of existing city, county

and geographical boundaries.

What it would do: Amendment 5 would require that

legislative districts not be drawn to favor one political

party over another or deny minorities equal opportunity

to participate in the political process.

Arguments for: Incumbents, both Democrat and

Republican, have traditionally drawn district boundaries

to give themselves political advantage. Redistricting

should not favor any incumbent or party.

Arguments against: The amendment might reduce

minority representation. Abiding by the amendment

would be difficult, and redistricting under its strictures

could lead to a flurry of lawsuits.

AT A GLANCE: AMENDMENT 6

Sponsor/Originator: FairDistrictsFlorida.org

Title on Ballot: Standards for Legislature to follow in

congressional redistricting

Official Summary: Congressional districts or

districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor

an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be

drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal

opportunity to participate in the political process and

elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be

contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must

be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and

where feasible must make use of existing city, county

and geographical boundaries.

What it would do: Amendment 6 would require that

congressional districts not be drawn to favor one

political party over another or deny minorities equal

opportunity to participate in the political process.

Arguments for: Incumbents, both Democrat and

Republican, have traditionally drawn district boundaries

to give themselves political advantage. Redistricting

should not favor any incumbent or party.

Arguments against: The amendment might reduce

minority representation. Abiding by the amendment

would be difficult, and redistricting under its strictures

could lead to a flurry of lawsuits.


Filed under Florida

← Older posts

Newer posts →