Orange County Grand Jury
• 2018-2019
Grand Jury 2018-2019 If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
The Auditor Controller’s department identity as a “taxpayer watchdog”, complete with a “bulldog logo”, created an adversarial image for some members of the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors and County elected officials should discuss and resolve differing opinions in a constructive and professional manner, without airing disagreements in a public forum. (F1, F2, F7)
F2
The need for the Auditor Controller’s “Community and Government Relations” team has been questioned by the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors and County elected officials should discuss and resolve differing opinions in a constructive and professional manner, without airing disagreements in a public forum. (F1, F2, F7)
F3
The Grand Jury has determined the Board of Supervisors had the right to take the action it did. However, independence, transparency and accountability may be flawed in a structure where people report to those that are being held accountable.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate the effect of the realignment on efficiency, effectiveness, staff and the public perception. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
R4
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate their decision to remove $1 million from the Auditor Controller’s budget and reallocate some or all of those dollars back to the Auditor Controller in order to fully staff the department and complete an Action Plan based on the Values Institute work on morale. (F3, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices . . . “ §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from:
F4
The Grand Jury found no evidence of inefficiency in the Auditor Controller’s office prior to realignment of the Internal Audit Department to the Board of Supervisors.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Realignment of the Internal Audit Department from the Auditor Controller to the Board of Supervisors has reduced staff mobility and cross training and may have adversely affected morale.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate the effect of the realignment on efficiency, effectiveness, staff and the public perception. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
R4
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should reevaluate their decision to remove $1 million from the Auditor Controller’s budget and reallocate some or all of those dollars back to the Auditor Controller in order to fully staff the department and complete an Action Plan based on the Values Institute work on morale. (F3, F5) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of the Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices . . . “ §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.” Comments to the presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from:
F6
Fifty-seven counties in California have combined departments of the Auditor Controller and Internal Audit; Orange County is the only county to have separate Auditor Controller and Internal Audit Offices, raising a question of efficiency and effectiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors should provide the public with an explanation for Orange County remaining unique among California’s 58 counties. (F6)
F7
Disagreements between the Board of Supervisors and the Auditor Controller’s Office over Supervisor mailers and a controversial pension payment were argued in the public arena, creating public dismay as well as distrust between the departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By September 30, 2019, the Board of Supervisors and County elected officials should discuss and resolve differing opinions in a constructive and professional manner, without airing disagreements in a public forum. (F1, F2, F7)
Conclusions 1
-
CL1There should be transparency and no conflict of interest in a combined Auditor Controller Internal Audit department if: 2018-2019 Orange County Grand Jury Page 9 If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It oversight of the departments is conducted by external audit sources, the Institute of Internal Auditors and the Government Accountability Standards issued by the Comptroller of the United States are followed by licensed CPAs and, combined departments in the other 57 counties in California are combined and successful. Nowhere in the Grand Jury’s investigation did the Grand Jury find evidence of incompetence or lack of efficiency on the part of the Auditor Controller, nor could the Grand Jury find any positives created by separating the functions. The department had received little attention during the prior two years and now had a department head who chose an active and engaged role with outreach to the voters. Fresh perspectives bring opportunity to question the status quo but can be uncomfortable. New ideas softly presented may take longer and bring more consistent change but reasoned flexibility within the County’s structure is an asset. Contentious governance disrupts positive performance. The position of Auditor Controller is elected by the citizens. That position reports to the citizens and acts as an agent to the Board of Supervisors and the County. The elected Supervisor positions report to the citizens and act as their agent. It is expected by the electorate that independence of audits is maintained and that their agents work together transparently and productively.
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County
County