Westmoreland County commissioners claim there were glaring errors and omissions in an audit that criticized operations in the county's computer department.
In a statement released Thursday, county officials also questioned the integrity of the findings by Controller Carmen Pedicone, who suggested inventory failures and missing computer equipment had plunged the computer department into disarray.
"In a very short time we were able to identify and resolve almost all of the so-called 'problems' listed in the audit -- some of which by simply walking into a particular office to confirm that the equipment was where our inventory system listed it," said David Ridilla, the county's director of information technology, in a prepared statement.
Last week, Pedicone released his findings from a six-month audit that revealed what he called major inadequacies in the county's inventory system, resulting in computer equipment that had been misplaced, missing or deployed after months of sitting in storage. The audit examined the computer's department operations over an 18-month period.
Pedicone recommended the county computer and purchasing departments should work together to prepare a better inventory system and to enhance security to ensure the equipment is properly protected.
As part of that audit, Ridilla told auditors that a better inventory of the county's computer equipment would be initiated sometime this fall.
According to the county's response, auditors incorrectly listed equipment as missing and the findings were based on inaccurate assumptions about missing computers. Labeling discrepancies accounted for 22 percent of the audit's findings, according to Ridilla.
The county conceded that five of the audit's 176 findings were justified, including three instances in which equipment had incorrect serial numbers and two cases in which computers were listed as being in different locations.
"I am confident in the accuracy of our inventory system. The county's computer control system is not in 'disarray,' as the audit findings would lead some to believe," Ridilla said.
Pedicone responded yesterday, saying he anticipated that county officials would find some of the missing computers. He said the county's review inaccurately characterized his audit.
Pedicone said the audit contained only six findings, not 176, as Ridilla noted, and that the commissioners' response dealt with only one aspect of the investigation.
"I'm glad they found some of this stuff, it's a good first step. But, the asset lists and inventory lists still don't jibe," Pedicone said. "I stand behind my audit and my auditors."
Commissioners were instantly critical of Pedicone's findings, saying the audit was inappropriate and the controller had no jurisdiction to investigate performance aspects of county government.
Officials said Pedicone can only audit fiscal matters.
Commissioner Tom Ceraso went a step further, suggesting that officials could order staff against cooperating with Pedicone in future audits and threatening to cut his staff should the controller conduct more performance audits.
Ceraso was unavailable for comment yesterday.
Commissioner Tom Balya, whose office released the audit response, declined to speak about the issue. Balya dispatched an office secretary to release a statement that said, "The release is what they (commissioners) have to say."
Commissioner Phil Light, who has also been critical of Pedicone's findings, yesterday described the audit as "an inefficient use of public funds."
"It took ... countless hours tying up people's time and effort and not coming up with anything," Light said. "We don't want to waste the public's money and time."
Light, along with Ceraso, has questioned Pedicone's authority to conduct performance audits and said the commissioners should have been notified at the start of the controller's inquiry and allowed to participate in the review.
Larger text
Smaller text
Print this article
E-mail this article
