Rockland Housing Authority

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor performance audit of the Rockland Housing Authority, covering January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012.

“I am pleased to provide this performance audit of the Rockland Housing Authority.”

Auditors checked whether the housing authority had proper controls over purchases and followed state housing procurement rules.

“The objectives of our audit were to review and analyze the Authority’s internal controls over its procurement of goods and services and to determine whether its procurement activities were efficient and in compliance with the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD’s) procurement guidelines and laws, rules, and regulations applicable to state-aided housing programs.”

If the authority does not keep and check an inventory, public property could be lost, stolen, or misused without being noticed.

“Without an up-to-date inventory list that is verified annually, there is inadequate assurance that the Authority’s property and equipment are adequately safeguarded against loss, theft, and misuse.”

For residents and taxpayers, the issue is basic accountability: the housing authority needs to know what public property it owns and protect it properly.

“The Rockland Housing Authority is authorized by and operates under the provisions of Chapter 121B of the Massachusetts General Laws, as amended.”

The main finding was that the authority lacked the required written inventory for its property and equipment after flood damage destroyed records.

“During our review of the Authority’s internal controls over its procurement of goods and services, we became aware that the Authority did not have a written inventory of its property and equipment as required by DHCD.”

The auditor recommended yearly physical counts, backups of records, staff training, and reconciliation with accounting records.

“Conduct physical counts annually, following up on unaccounted-for items and adjusting the permanent record by removing discarded items.”

The problem was limited, but important: the audit did not find broad purchasing failures, yet missing inventory records weakened protection over public assets.

“The contents of the Authority’s office were unsalvageable, and the Authority did not have a contingency plan in place, such as the backing up of the inventory record to an off-site location, that could have reproduced the lost inventory records.”

“Procurement” means how the authority buys goods and services; “internal controls” means the procedures meant to make sure those purchases and records are handled properly.

“To accomplish our audit objectives, we reviewed the Authority’s procurement policies and procedures to verify that they include criteria for compliance with the state’s public bidding law (Chapter 30B of the General Laws) and DHCD guidelines.”