Mendocino County

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR Report 2025-049 | December 2025 Table 1 Of the 30 Expenditures We Reviewed, Many Lacked Supporting Documentation That Would Better Guard Against Waste, Fraud, and Abuse EXPENDITURE TYPE OR EXPENDITURE DEPARTMENT VENDOR NAME AMOUNT CONCERN(S) WE NOTED Social Services Two approvals were required. One approval was not documented and the other was Calendars $1,866 provided by someone without sufficient authority to authorize an expenditure of this amount. Hand sanitizer 1,805 Two approvals were required, but only one was documented. Two approvals were required, but only one was documented. Additionally, the Online retailer 523 department did not retain a receipt showing the purchased items, leaving questions about what these funds were used for. The expenditure did not have a department requisition form, which would have Online retailer 218 showed the purpose of the purchase and the approver who authorized the purchase. Sheriff’s Office Donation was missing the application form that would show important information Donation to 2,000 about the recipient. Additionally, no documentation showed that the recipient was Lions Club* restricted in its use of these funds for specific public purposes. Preapproval by undersheriff or fiscal manager was required but was not documented. Laptop 999 Staff directed the purchase to occur without documented preapproval. Advance payment to 200 staff for travel Staff were issued funds to pay for meals in advance of their trips without any evidence that the Sheriff’s Office verified that they completed their trips as scheduled Advance to justify the payments. payment to 172 staff for travel District Documentation supporting this expenditure does not show why it was a prudent use Attorney’s Office Broiler 3,600 of public funds to hold an end-of-year gathering and dinner event at a restaurant. Steakhouse* Later in our report we conclude that this was a gift of public funds. Donation was missing the application form that would show important information Fort Bragg 3,000 about the recipient. Additionally, no documentation showed that the recipient was Rotary Club* restricted in its use of these funds for specific public purposes. Wholesale 1,865 A receipt was the only supporting documentation for both of these expenditures. retailer As a result, there is no documentation to provide any context or rationale for the purchases that would show why they were necessary and appropriate. For example, Antique store* 71 the receipt from the wholesale retailer showed the purchase of a television and food items. Reimbursement A traveler approved his own meal reimbursement payment, indicating a lack of 304 for travel separation of duties. Source: Review of expenditures made by the departments and interviews with relevant staff at each department. * We have additional concerns that these expenditures were of questionable public value. We describe these concerns in detail later in our report.