Investigative Report

Allegations of Improper
Spending and Accounting
Practices by Supervisor of
Elections

Phil Diamond, CPA

County Comptroller
Orange County, Florida
www.occompt.com

Report No. 514

December 2024
County Audit Division

Wendy Kittleson, CPA, CISA, CIA

Assistant Comptroller

Lisa Fuller, CISA, CIA, CGAP

Director

Erin Boley, CPA, CIA

Deputy Director

Engagement Team

Jaqueline Bedoya, CIA, CGAP

Audit Supervisor

Orange County Comptroller’s Office

Mission
The mission of the Orange County Comptroller’s Office is to serve
the citizens of Orange County and our customers by providing
responsive, ethical, effective, and efficient protection and
management of public funds, assets, and documents, as specified
in the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes.

Vision
The vision of the Orange County Comptroller’s Office is to be
recognized as a highly competent, cohesive team leading the
quest for continuing excellence in the effective safeguarding and
ethical management of public funds, assets, and documents.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TRANSMITTAL LETTER ..................................................................................... 4

ALLEGATION....................................................................................................... 5

BACKGROUND.................................................................................................... 5

INVESTIGATION RESULTS ................................................................................ 6

Finding 1 – The Supervisor of Elections Expended More Than Allowed by

Florida Statute. ......................................................................................... 6
Finding 2 – The Supervisor of Elections Violated Florida Statute with a
Payment of Over $1.1 Million to a Nonprofit Organization ....................... 8
Finding 3 – The Supervisor of Elections Wrote Checks Totaling More Than the
Checking Account Balance .................................................................... 10
Finding 4 – The Supervisor of Elections Did Not Follow Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles for Accruing Expenses ........................................ 11

APPENDIX A — VENDORS PAID OVER $10,000 SINCE OCTOBER 1ST ...... 12

 Allegations of Improper Spending and
Accounting Practices by Supervisor of Elections

Allegation
On November 26, 2024, a confidential informant contacted the Comptroller’s Audit
Division with allegations of improper spending and accounting practices by the
Supervisor of Elections, Glen Gilzean.

Background
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the Supervisor of Elections’
2025 budget for the year beginning on October 1, 2024. The approved budget
was $19,148,367. Florida Statute 129.202(1)(a) requires the BCC to pay the
Supervisor’s Office 25% of the total amount budgeted in October and 6.82% each
month thereafter. 1

The County has historically funded the Supervisor’s budget faster than required
under Florida statute. On October 3rd, the County funded the first 25% of the
Supervisor’s annual budget. That payment was $4,787,091.75. A second
payment for another $4,787,091.75 was made on November 4th. In total, the
County has already provided $9,574,183.50 to the Supervisor for fiscal year 2025.
This amount is 50% of the Supervisor’s annual budget and more than $2 million
higher than Florida statute requires. 2 According to Florida statute another payment
would not be required until February 1, 2024, for $436,582.77.

In response to the allegations received, we requested financial documents

including bank statements, a detailed listing of all transactions (including date,
payee, and amount) and a sample of invoices from the Supervisor. Based on
financial documents received, the Supervisor has spent $9,855,709.53 between
October 1st and December 12th.

1
Florida Statute 129.202(1)(a) requires payments of $4,787,091.75 in October, $1,305,918.63 in November, and
$1,305,918.63 in December for a total of $7,398,929.01.
2
$9,574,183.50 - $7,398,929.01 = $2,175,254.49

5 | Page
 Allegations of Improper Spending and
Accounting Practices by Supervisor of Elections

Investigation Results
As a result of our investigation, we concluded that the Supervisor of Elections:
1. Violated Florida statute by expending more than one-twelfth of the annual
approved budget in all three months of the fiscal year.
2. Violated Florida statute by making a $1.137 million disbursement to Central
Florida Foundation which was not approved in the itemized budget.
3. Wrote checks in excess of the available balance in the checking account.
4. Misstated financial position by failing to accrue expenses incurred in fiscal
year 2024.

Finding 1 – The Supervisor of Elections Expended More

Than Allowed by Florida Statute.
According to Florida Statute 129.06(5):
Any county constitutional officer whose budget is approved by the
board of county commissioners, who has not been reelected to office
or is not seeking reelection, shall be prohibited from making any
budget amendments, transferring funds between itemized
appropriations, or expending in a single month more than one-twelfth
of any itemized approved appropriation, following the date he or she is
eliminated as a candidate or October 1, whichever comes later, without
approval of the board of county commissioners.

As the Supervisor of Elections did not seek reelection, he was only allowed to
spend one-twelfth, or approximately 8.33%, of the approved budget each month.
For fiscal year 2025, the
approved budget is
$19,148,367. As such, the
Supervisor’s office was only
legally allowed to spend
$1,595,698 monthly. 3

3
Although F.S 129.06(5) specifies any itemized approved appropriation, we used the total amount expended for comparison
purposes. If the total amount expended exceeded the one-twelfth maximum amount allowed, then one or more of the
itemized amounts would have exceeded the maximum amount allowed.

6 | Page
 Allegations of Improper Spending and
Accounting Practices by Supervisor of Elections

We obtained bank statements and check registers from the Supervisor’s Office for
October, November, and December — through December 12th. According to these
check registers, the Supervisor’s Office spent more than allowed by statute in each
of these three months. The total amount overspent was $ $5,068,616. 4 The
monthly overspending is shown below: 5

4 The total amount of overspending does not include expenditures incurred during the remaining 19 days in December.
5 Monthly amounts spent are calculated on a cash basis. Amounts calculated on an accrual basis will vary, but the
aggregate three month overspend amount will be the same.

7 | Page
 Allegations of Improper Spending and
Accounting Practices by Supervisor of Elections

As of December 12, 2024 — only 2 months and 12 days into the budget year —
the Supervisor of Elections had spent 51% of the total annual budget and violated
Florida statute by not obtaining
approval from the BCC to exceed the
allowed amount. We recognize that
there was a general election on
November 5th, which would have
required additional funds. However,
the Supervisor of Elections was
required to obtain approval from the
County Commission to spend
additional funds.

An approved budget is a key control that provides a framework for how funds
should be spent. An approved budget helps keep governments accountable to the
public. An approved budget helps prevent waste or misuse of taxpayer dollars.

As an added reference point, we contacted two comparable Florida counties 6 with

similar numbers of registered voters. Based on reported information, these
counties have spent 27% and 35% of their annual budgets administering
comparable elections. These percentages are significantly lower than the 51%
expended by the Orange County Supervisor.

As a result of this persistent overspending, the newly elected Supervisor of

Elections will take office with only 49% of the annual budget available on January
7th. The amount available will likely decrease with the costs related to another
December payroll run and any other additional December spending.

Finding 2 – The Supervisor of Elections Violated Florida

Statute with a Payment of Over $1.1 Million to a Nonprofit
Organization
On October 3, 2024—the third day of the fiscal year—the Supervisor of Elections
paid $1.137 million to the Central Florida Foundation. This included $1 million in

6
Hillsborough and Palm Beach

8 | Page
 Allegations of Improper Spending and
Accounting Practices by Supervisor of Elections

grants to be distributed. The remaining amount of $137,500 was an administration

fee that he agreed to pay the Central Florida Foundation.

As noted above, an outgoing constitutional officer is only allowed to spend 8.33%

of their annual budget in any month. This unbudgeted payment to the Foundation
represented 6% of the Supervisor’s annual budget. By way of comparison, we
determined that the Supervisor’s average monthly payroll cost was over $500,000.
With such a large payment to the Foundation, the Supervisor of Elections would
be unable to pay his employees, much less any other expenses, without exceeding
Florida’s legal monthly maximum.

Additionally, according to Florida Statute 129.201(2) relating to Budget of

Supervisor of Elections; manner and time of preparation and presentation:
Expenditures must be itemized in accordance with the uniform
accounting system prescribed by the Department of Financial
Services as follows:
(a) Personnel services.
(b) Operating expenses.
(c) Capital outlay.
(d) Debt service.
(e) Grants and aids.
(f) Other uses.

As shown below, the Supervisor of Elections’ annual budget approved by the BCC
did not include any amounts for (e) grants and aids or (f) Other uses.

9 | Page
 Allegations of Improper Spending and
Accounting Practices by Supervisor of Elections

This payment to the Foundation would require transferring funds between itemized
appropriations, which is not permitted without BCC approval for a constitutional
officer who chose not to seek reelection. 7

Finding 3 – The Supervisor of Elections Wrote Checks

Totaling More Than the Checking Account Balance
We reviewed the November 2024 Seacoast bank account statement and verified
that the ending balance was $4,438,501.17 on November 30, 2024. According to
the check register provided by the Supervisor, almost $4.7 million in checks were
written in December by December 12, 2024. Additionally, over $300,000 in checks
were still outstanding from previous months. These amounts represent over $5
million that will clear the bank account when all checks are cashed.

Assuming no additional deposits are made before the checks clear the account,
there is not enough money in the account to pay for all the checks written — which
would result in an overdraft of $587,173.13.

* A deposit of $ $1,138.65 for interest was received on December 11th. This amount was deducted from checks written.

Uncontrolled spending, bank errors, or a miscalculation of available funds may

cause overdrafts or insufficient funds. Many banks impose additional fees or
penalties for overdrawn accounts and interest on overdraft amounts.

Accounts should be closely monitored to avoid additional fees, penalties, and

interest. Monitoring should include a review of the following:
• Account balances and pending transactions to ensure there are sufficient
funds, and
• Expenditures against budgeted expenses to avoid uncontrolled spending.

7
F.S. 129.06(5)

10 | Page
 Allegations of Improper Spending and
Accounting Practices by Supervisor of Elections

Finding 4 – The Supervisor of Elections Did Not Follow

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for Accruing
Expenses
The informant alleged that the Supervisor of Elections knowingly failed to accrue
expenses totaling over $600,000 as required by accounting standards. We
reviewed a sample of invoices totaling $147,932.39 that were improperly recorded,
according to the informant. Of the $147,932.39 in invoices reviewed, we identified
a total of $127,415.67 in expenses that should have been accrued in accordance
with the modified accrual basis of accounting as required by Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) for governmental entities. 8

Based on the invoices reviewed, we confirmed this allegation was true and
additional expenses should have been accrued in fiscal year 2024. If we had
reviewed additional invoices, this amount may have increased to almost $600,000
as alleged. We have provided the informant’s list to the County’s external auditors
for consideration while preparing the annual financial reports.

This issue relates to services or goods received but not paid prior to year-end and
not recorded as accrued expenses. Under the modified accrual basis of
accounting, governmental entities are required to recognize liabilities when goods
or services have been received, regardless of when they pay the bills. The failure
to accrue these expenses results in a misstatement of both the liabilities and
expenditures in the financial statements, leading to an overstatement of the
Supervisor of Elections’ funds available at fiscal year-end and an inaccurate
reflection of financial activity. 9

8
We identified an additional $12,218.23 of invoices that should have been accrued that were not included on the informant’s
list.

9
GASB Statement No. 34, "Basic Financial Statements — and Management's Discussion and Analysis — for State and
Local Governments," requires using the modified accrual basis for governmental funds, which includes the recognition of
liabilities and expenses when they are incurred, regardless of cash payment timing.

11 | Page
APPENDIX A Allegation of Excessive Spending by Outgoing
Vendors Paid over $10,000 Supervisor of Elections

Vendors Paid Over $10,000

Since October 1st

12 | Page