📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ 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 4 findings
F17
THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT AUDIT REPORTS CONDUCTED BY THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER GO THROUGH THE SAME BOARD PROCESS AS DO THE AUDITS FROM MSD. THEY SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE ENTIRE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT A PUBLIC SESSION AS AGENDA ITEMS AND THE AUDITED DEPARTMENT SHOULD REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD WITHIN 60 DAYS AS TO THE ACTION IT PLANS TO TAKE RELATIVE TO THE RECOM- WENDATIONS. IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The ability of an audited department to out-of-hand reject the recommendations of an audit with no explanation is a weakness in the process. This is not to suggest that audits should be accepted without question. Presently, the Auditor-Controller delivers a report but has no authority to enforce its recommendations or findings - whereas the MSD Per Pro- tries to overcome this problem by "negotiating" with the department ahead of time over its findings and recommendations. The "negotiating" process may influence the high implementation rate of recommendations.
F18
THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FORMALLY ESTABLISH AN AUDIT COMMITTEE WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE TO REVIEW ALL AUDITS AND RELATED REPORTS ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION, THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER, AND THE GRAND JURY; MONITOR THE RESPONSES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS OF THE AUDITED DEPARTMENTS; MEDIATE DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS BETWEEN THE AUDIT AGENCY AND THE AUDITEE. (Alternative compositions of an Audit Committee are presented in the full audit report.)
F19
THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNTY ALTER ITS BUDGETING POLICY AND ALLOCATE TO THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION AND THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER EACH YEAR THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO CONDUCT ALL APPROVED MANAGEMENT (AND OTHER) AUDITS. PROVISIONS SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF AUDIT COSTS FROM OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, E.G., FEDERAL OR STATE, WHERE APPROPRIATE.
F20
THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN A LIBRARY OF AUDIT REPORTS AND DISSEMINATE AUDIT INFORMATION AMONG THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. Sandra Klasky, Chair Maycie Herrington Jean Hitchcock Edwin Kwoh Patricia Lofland Lidia Roth Eduardo Valdiviez . 24
Recommendations 9
-
R17THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT AUDIT REPORTS CONDUCTED BY THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER GO THROUGH THE SAME BOARD PROCESS AS DO THE AUDITS FROM MSD. THEY SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE ENTIRE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT A PUBLIC SESSION AS AGENDA ITEMS AND THE AUDITED DEPARTMENT SHOULD REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD WITHIN 60 DAYS AS TO THE ACTION IT PLANS TO TAKE RELATIVE TO THE RECOM- WENDATIONS. IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The ability of an audited department to out-of-hand reject the recommendations of an audit with no explanation is a weakness in the process. This is not to suggest that audits should be accepted without question. Presently, the Auditor-Controller delivers a report but has no authority to enforce its recommendations or
-
R18THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FORMALLY ESTABLISH AN AUDIT COMMITTEE WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY SHALL BE TO REVIEW ALL AUDITS AND RELATED REPORTS ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION, THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER, AND THE GRAND JURY; MONITOR THE RESPONSES AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS OF THE AUDITED DEPARTMENTS; MEDIATE DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS BETWEEN THE AUDIT AGENCY AND THE AUDITEE. (Alternative compositions of an Audit Committee are presented in the full audit report.)
-
R19THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNTY ALTER ITS BUDGETING POLICY AND ALLOCATE TO THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION AND THE AUDITOR-CONTROLLER EACH YEAR THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO CONDUCT ALL APPROVED MANAGEMENT (AND OTHER) AUDITS. PROVISIONS SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF AUDIT COSTS FROM OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, E.G., FEDERAL OR STATE, WHERE APPROPRIATE.
-
R20THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN A LIBRARY OF AUDIT REPORTS AND DISSEMINATE AUDIT INFORMATION AMONG THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. Sandra Klasky, Chair Maycie Herrington Jean Hitchcock Edwin Kwoh Patricia Lofland Lidia Roth Eduardo Valdiviez . 24
-
R21THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROVIDE FREE PRELIMINARY DIAGNOSES OF ILLNESSES. A PLAN FOR PAYMENT COULD BE MADE WHEN DISCUSSION OF FURTHER TESTING AND TREATMENT TOOK PLACE. THIS WILL BE PREVENTATIVE IN NATURE AND MIGHT PRECLUDE COSTLY HOSPITALIZATION AT A LATER CRITICAL PERIOD OF THE ILLNESS.
-
R22THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DEVELOP NEW AND MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF DISSEMINATING INFORMATION REGARDING AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO THE NEW MEDICALLY INDIGENT ADULTS SO THAT EARLY DETECTION AND TREATMENT OF DISEASE CAN TAKE PLACE. 28 . .
-
R23THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT THE MEDICAL RECORDS Section of the second ABSTRACT SYSTEM IN THE HOSPITALS BE UNDER COMPUTER CAPABILITY.
-
R24THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT HEALTH FACILITY ADMIN- Section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of the section of t ISTRATORS GIVE CLOSER ATTENTION TO THE STAFF'S NEED FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ANTICIPATED CHANGES.
-
R25THE GRAND JURY RECOMMENDS THAT FUNDING BE IDENTIFIED FOR COST EFFECTIVE, LONG-RANGE PLANNING PROGRAMS TO INCLUDE PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE, IT IS PROJECTED BY FUTURISTS THAT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY AREA WILL BE THE MOST POPULOUS IN THE UNITED STATES AROUND THE YEAR 2000, GERIATRIC NEEDS MUST BE MET AS WELL AS OTHER HEALTH CARE PHENOMENA WHICH MUST BE INCLUDED IN PROJECTED PLANNING. Juanita Dudley, Chair 1.8 Helene Eller 20 Jennie Kerr Patricia Lofland 1.5 Eduardo Valdiviez 1 1 . 1 1.8 Section 2 29