The V.I. Inspector General has released his final audit on collection activities of the Vitran system on St. Croix, and the findings do not paint a good picture. The audit, requested by Finance Commissioner Bernice Turnbull, was to determine whether appropriate controls existed to safeguard funds collected, and whether collectors complied with established rules and regulations. The audit covered fiscal year 1999, during which revenues collected on St. Croix totaled almost $282,000.
In a letter to the governor dated July 13, V.I Inspector General Steven Van Beverhoudt wrote that his review determined that Vitran fare box collection practices on St. Croix did not comply with established procedures. Funds were retained from the fare box collections to purchase supplies and parts and were not deposited into the General Fund or reported to the Finance Department, he said.
In the separate service for the handicapped, fares collected from passengers were not always deposited intact and promptly, the audit found. The review also uncovered that controls over the cash boxes and the keys for the counting room and vault did not offer security for the funds collected. It also found that the fare box data system report, which is compared to the actual money counted, could not be used to determine whether funds collected were accounted for.
The inspector general recommended that the Public Works Department, which oversees Vitran, discontinue the practice of retaining fare box money and that it have the Finance Department establish an imprest fund of about $15,000 for Vitran use in purchasing emergency supplies and parts. This fund should be operated in accordance with established petty cash rules and regulations, the report said.
Van Beverhoudt also suggested the government procure and install secure cash boxes in the mini-buses to prevent the theft of collection. He also recommended that a security process be establish to safeguard counting room keys.
At an exit conference held with Public Works officials, they agreed with the recommendations. However, the department did not respond formally to the audit, despite two extensions being given for officials to do so.
