⚠️ 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 73 findings
F01
The Ventura County Auditor-Controller is an elected official who is required to meet the qualifications for the position of Auditor described in California Government Code §26945.
No recommendations for this finding
F02
The Auditor-Controller is the County of Ventura’s Chief Financial Officer and maintains all basic financial information, analyzes accounting reports, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and County agencies relating to the County’s financial condition.
No recommendations for this finding
F03
The Auditor-Controller is responsible for financial compliance and operational audits of County agencies, public authorities, and dependent districts. County Governance
No recommendations for this finding
F04
The BOS is the governing body of Ventura County. The Board has the authority to adopt ordinances and make appropriations. The final budgets of agencies under both elected and appointed County officials are approved by the BOS.
No recommendations for this finding
F05
County Ordinance No. 4235 (CEO Ordinance) was adopted by the BOS on May 22, 2001, less than two months after the current County Executive Officer (CEO) was hired, to redefine that position and to re-title it from County Administrative Officer to County Executive Officer.
No recommendations for this finding
F06
The CEO Ordinance reflected a change in the role of the County’s chief employee from an administrator to an executive. Failure to Audit
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The CEO Ordinance changed budgeting responsibility from the Auditor- Controller to the CEO. This consolidated budgeting and finance under one office.
No recommendations for this finding
F08
The CEO Ordinance states, “All departmental requests for Board action shall be through the CEO. Board members are encouraged to seek both CEO and County Counsel review of proposed items.”
No recommendations for this finding
F09
The CEO Ordinance established specific duties and responsibilities of the CEO including, “The CEO shall, in cooperation with the Auditor- Controller, supervise, direct, review, and maintain an adequate internal auditing system.”
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Supervisors rely on the CEO and his staff for recommendations on financial management issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The CEO and the Chairman of the BOS set the time allocations for the BOS discussion of agenda items.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The Auditor-Controller is often involved late or not involved at all in reviewing issues being decided by the BOS that affect the fiscal health of the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R07
The BOS should not act on any fiscal or financial issue without first obtaining and acknowledging a written opinion from the Auditor-Controller. This includes, but is not limited to, actions on personnel issues (staffing levels, compensation, and benefits), budgets (including revisions to budgets already adopted), and debt financing. (C-01, C-04, C-17)
F13
The Auditor-Controller is rarely asked by the BOS for an opinion on issues that affect the fiscal health of the County. County Budget
Related Recommendations (1)
R07
The BOS should not act on any fiscal or financial issue without first obtaining and acknowledging a written opinion from the Auditor-Controller. This includes, but is not limited to, actions on personnel issues (staffing levels, compensation, and benefits), budgets (including revisions to budgets already adopted), and debt financing. (C-01, C-04, C-17)
F14
Budgeting was transferred from the Auditor-Controller to the CEO because state law requires that the BOS be responsible for the budget. The Auditor-Controller is independently elected and does not report to the BOS.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
The office of the CEO recommends proposed (target) budgets, including the budget for the Auditor-Controller.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Agencies requesting budgets greater than the CEO’s target budget, including agencies headed by an elected official, must justify their requested increase to the CEO before the overall target budget is submitted to the BOS.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Requests for supplemental funding for budgets not included in the target budget document are presented to the BOS without support or recommendation from the CEO. The BOS rarely approves a supplemental budget request.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The Auditor-Controller has asked for additional audit staff during the past six years. The appeals to the BOS have been denied, as have requests by other County agencies for additional funding.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
In the past five years, the office of the Chief Deputy Executive Officer has grown from two employees to approximately 12, with eight analysts reporting directly to the Chief Deputy. Those reporting directly all earn approximately $100,000 per year. Failure to Audit 3 Audit Division
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Government Code §26884 states, “In the event the BOS elects to require that the county Auditor-Controller perform the additional services [audit] authorized by this chapter it shall have the power and it shall be its duty to provide the proper appropriations for any additional personnel, equipment, supplies or expenses made necessary thereby.”
No recommendations for this finding
F21
The current (March 1, 2007) audit staff consists of two auditors: one with CPA certification and one with a BS degree in accounting. The entry level salary is $38,000 per year.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
The Audit Division is budgeted for two Auditor III positions at $50,000 each and two Auditor IV positions at $70,000 each.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
Current senior level auditor compensation levels are not sufficient to attract and/or retain experienced senior level auditor staff. During 2006, the Audit Division hired three entry-level Auditor I employees at $38,000 each because experienced Auditor III and Auditor IV auditors could not be recruited.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
The audit staff in 2003 consisted of seven people: four CPAs (two of whom had Master’s degrees), two certified internal auditors, and one certified fraud examiner.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
The audit staff in 1991 consisted of ten auditors.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
The Audit Division frequently has open positions which it is unable to fill. The only recruitment advertisement is that which is posted on the County Web site.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
With the exception of the Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller, all current audit staff has been employed by the County for one year or less.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
The audit staff has been weakened due to turnover of experienced auditors seeking career advancement.
No recommendations for this finding
F29
The Audit Plan for 1990-91 for the County of Ventura provided 14,147 direct time audit hours with mostly experienced auditors.
No recommendations for this finding
F30
The Audit Plan for 2006-07 for the County of Ventura provided 5,760 hours with mostly inexperienced auditors.
No recommendations for this finding
F31
The Audit Division is understaffed in numbers and qualifications. With the exception of mandated audits, only cursory other audit activities are being accomplished.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
that the BOS take active responsibility for internal audit resources, including annual budget, staffing size, salaries, and position classification.
R08
The BOS must provide sufficient budgeted resources to the Auditor- Controller to audit each County agency at least once every three years. The BOS must also direct each County organization operating as an enterprise fund to budget sufficient funds to pay the Auditor-Controller to audit them annually. (C-02, C-07, C-09, C-10, C-11, C-14 through C-17) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-06, R-07, R-08) Auditor-Controller (R-03, R-05, R-07) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer (R-04) References Ref-01. Recommended Practice, Establishment of Audit Committees; Government Finance Officers Association; October 25, 2002; see Failure to Audit 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Failure to Audit
F32
County entities with revenues from fees charged to the public for services rendered are termed “enterprise fund” organizations. Such organizations are not currently being audited except for audits mandated by state and federal laws. For example, • The Department of Airports has not had a comprehensive financial audit since 1989. Failure to Audit • No record can be found of the last comprehensive financial audit of the Harbor Department.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
In order to accomplish tri-annual audits of all 26 agencies in the County of Ventura, additional experienced auditors are needed.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
that the BOS take active responsibility for internal audit resources, including annual budget, staffing size, salaries, and position classification.
R08
The BOS must provide sufficient budgeted resources to the Auditor- Controller to audit each County agency at least once every three years. The BOS must also direct each County organization operating as an enterprise fund to budget sufficient funds to pay the Auditor-Controller to audit them annually. (C-02, C-07, C-09, C-10, C-11, C-14 through C-17) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-06, R-07, R-08) Auditor-Controller (R-03, R-05, R-07) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer (R-04) References Ref-01. Recommended Practice, Establishment of Audit Committees; Government Finance Officers Association; October 25, 2002; see Failure to Audit 13 (This page intentionally blank) 14 Failure to Audit
F34
In the 2001-2002 budget approved by the BOS, three positions were transferred from the Auditor-Controller’s Office to the CEO in order to strengthen the County’s financial management. This resulted in a decrease of three auditors in the Audit Division.
No recommendations for this finding
F35
A supplemental budget request in the amount of $155,000 by the Auditor- Controller to fund replacing those three positions in the Audit Division was not recommended by the CEO and was subsequently denied by the BOS. The Auditor-Controller informed the BOS that this lack of funding would delay the full implementation of the enhanced audit program by leaving audit positions vacant. Prior Grand Jury Reports
No recommendations for this finding
F36
In the Auditor-Controller’s August 14, 2002, response to the report “The Public Administrator and Public Guardian as Conservator” of the 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury, which was sent to the BOS and the CEO, the Auditor-Controller stated, “Because of limited audit resources, audits of the PA/PG must compete with other audit requirements and priorities.”
No recommendations for this finding
F37
In the Auditor-Controller’s July 17, 2003, response to the report “Independent Auditing within Ventura County Government” of the 2002- 2003 Ventura County Grand Jury (2002-03 Grand Jury), which was sent to the BOS and the CEO, the Auditor-Controller stated, “… the internal audit function with the Auditor-Controller’s Office should be strengthened, particularly in light of difficult financial circumstances.” The Auditor- Controller also stated, “We believe the Board of Supervisors is aware of the importance of internal audits for the Auditor-Controller.”
No recommendations for this finding
F38
The Auditor-Controller agreed with 2002-03 Grand Jury recommendation
No recommendations for this finding
F39
The BOS responded to recommendation R-3 in the 2002-03 Grand Jury report by suggesting that individual departments deal with the issue of internal audits through reorganization and the reallocation of resources.
No recommendations for this finding
F40
In the Auditor-Controller’s May 12, 2004, response to the report “Anatomy of an Audit” of the 2003-2004 Ventura County Grand Jury, which was sent to the BOS and the CEO, the Auditor-Controller stated, “We do not have sufficient audit resources to establish a meaningful audit program for the County.” Failure to Audit 5 Internal Control Self-Assessment Program
No recommendations for this finding
F41
Government Code §26881 states, “…Auditor-Controller shall prescribe, and shall exercise general supervision, including the ability to review departmental and countywide internal controls.”
No recommendations for this finding
F42
Auditing, whether contracted through independent CPA firms or performed by the Audit Division, is one of the means used by the Office of the Auditor-Controller to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
No recommendations for this finding
F43
Under government auditing standards, department management is responsible for establishing an effective system of internal controls to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
F44
The tri-annual Departmental Internal Control Self-Assessment Program was initiated by the Auditor-Controller and the CEO in February 2004. Under this plan, every department is responsible for reviewing its internal controls, determining risk areas within its operations, and strengthening its internal control structure.
No recommendations for this finding
F45
The initial efforts of the Internal Control Self-Assessment Program were developed to assist departments to perform the review. Thereafter, the Audit Division would periodically assess each department’s implementation of the Self-Assessment Program and recommend necessary corrective actions.
No recommendations for this finding
F46
Not all county agencies completed the questionnaires and returned them to the Auditor-Controller as required by the Departmental Internal Control Self-Assessment Program. Among those not in compliance was the office of Treasurer-Tax Collector.
No recommendations for this finding
F47
As a result of staff reductions in the Audit Division, no follow-up or review of the Internal Control Self-Assessment Questionnaires has been done.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05
The Auditor-Controller should issue semi-annual reports on the Internal Control Self-Assessment Program to both the BOS and the Audit Committee on compliance, potential weaknesses in internal controls, and recommended corrective actions. The BOS must budget sufficient resources to make this Program effective. (C-01, C-07, C-09, C-10, C-11, C-15, C-16)
F48
While all departments have been directed to report to the Auditor- Controller when weaknesses in internal controls are found, compliance is inconsistent. A Breakdown of Internal Controls
Related Recommendations (1)
R05
The Auditor-Controller should issue semi-annual reports on the Internal Control Self-Assessment Program to both the BOS and the Audit Committee on compliance, potential weaknesses in internal controls, and recommended corrective actions. The BOS must budget sufficient resources to make this Program effective. (C-01, C-07, C-09, C-10, C-11, C-15, C-16)
F49
In 2005, embezzlement was discovered in the Public Guardian’s Office, resulting in part from a breakdown in that office’s internal controls.
No recommendations for this finding
F50
The Auditor-Controller was not involved in detecting or correcting the breakdown in internal controls in the Public Guardian’s Office.
No recommendations for this finding
F51
A criminal investigation of embezzlement within the Public Guardian’s Office and indictments of those accused in those crimes cost Ventura County over $628,000 through the end of November 2006.
No recommendations for this finding
F52
Restitution to four victims of embezzlement in the Public Guardian’s Office cost Ventura County more than $81,000, plus an additional amount still under negotiation with a fifth victim. Continuing investigation may uncover additional victims. Failure to Audit
No recommendations for this finding
F53
The County has contracted for an outside audit of the Public Guardian’s Office at a cost of $56,750, with an option to expand that audit to include the entire Office of the Treasurer-Tax Collector. Independent CPA Firms
No recommendations for this finding
F54
California statutes provide that the Auditor-Controller has the authority and responsibility for the County’s audit program.
No recommendations for this finding
F55
The Auditor-Controller hires an independent Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm each year to perform a financial statement audit and express an opinion on those financial statements.
No recommendations for this finding
F56
The independent auditor does not evaluate or express an opinion on the effectiveness of the County’s internal controls.
No recommendations for this finding
F57
The Auditor-Controller has changed audit firms three times in the past three years. • KPMG performed the fiscal year 2003-2004 audit. • Macias Gina performed the fiscal year 2004-2005 audit. • Vavrine, Trine, Day performed the fiscal year 2005-2006 audit. Each of these firms was paid approximately $150,000 for their services.
No recommendations for this finding
F58
Changes in financial audit firms were due to pricing, failure to provide services per contract, and quality of services.
No recommendations for this finding
F59
The CEO allocates funds to selected departments for independent management audits (e.g., review of internal controls, evaluation of department procedures and processes). Departments receiving such budget allocations are not required to notify the CEO if their audits do not exceed $10,000.
No recommendations for this finding
F60
The Auditor-Controller is not included in the decision to hire management auditors, setting the scope of the audits, or informed as to the results of the work.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
The BOS should adopt an ordinance requiring the Auditor-Controller’s signature on any contract between a County agency and an independent, outside CPA or management firm for any management, operational, financial, or internal control audit or review of a department within that agency. Such contracts must require that the Auditor-Controller receive any interim and final reports issued to the contracting agency by the outside firm. (C-04, C-06) 12 Failure to Audit
F61
Department heads are routinely notified that the Auditor-Controller should be involved in scheduling outside audits and participating in audit exit interviews. Audit Committee
No recommendations for this finding
F62
In 1997 and again in 2002, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommended that every governmental entity should establish an audit committee or its equivalent. [Ref-01]
No recommendations for this finding
F63
The auditor of a state or local government’s financial statements must be independent, both in fact and in appearance. A properly constituted audit committee helps to enhance the financial statement auditor’s real and perceived independence by providing a direct link between the auditor and the governing board. [Ref-01] Failure to Audit 7
No recommendations for this finding
F64
One role of an audit committee is to facilitate communication between management, the auditors, and the governing board.
No recommendations for this finding
F65
The GFOA recommends the use of an audit committee to limit the reliance of governing bodies on the technical expertise of the independent auditor.
No recommendations for this finding
F66
According to the GFOA, an audit committee is also useful in helping to focus and document the government’s process for managing the financial statement audit.
No recommendations for this finding
F67
The BOS approved a resolution on March 15, 1983, to create an Audit Advisory Committee. This action was prompted by Recommendation #1 in the report “Auditor-Controller” of the 1981-1982 Ventura County Grand Jury.
No recommendations for this finding
F68
An Audit Advisory Committee of seven members — including a County Supervisor — was appointed in accord with the BOS resolution. However, the Audit Advisory Committee was never able to obtain a quorum for conducting a meeting and subsequently ceased to exist. In the Auditor- Controller’s response to the 2002-03 Grand Jury report, the BOS was informed that the Audit Advisory Committee no longer existed.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01
The Grand Jury urges the BOS to establish an independent Ventura County Audit Committee by ordinance, using guidelines provided by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA, Ref-01). Because many of the County agencies that would be audited report to the CEO, the CEO should not recruit or recommend members for the Audit Committee in order to ensure the integrity of the audit process and the independence of the Committee. Although the function of the Audit Committee is to support the efforts of the Auditor-Controller and work cooperatively with that office, independence of the Audit Committee also requires that its members not be recruited or recommended by the Auditor-Controller. (C-01, C-05, C-12, C-17)
R1
In order to insure that the County meets the newer standards for independent audit the Board of Supervisors establish an effective oversight mechanism to insure adequate audit resources and independence.
R2
The Grand Jury recommends the establishment of an Audit Oversight Committee reporting to the Board of Supervisors. This committee would be charged with responsibility for oversight of internal controls and independent audits within the County. It would be composed of a Chair, a Co-Chair, The Chief Executive Officer, the Auditor-Controller, the Treasurer–Tax collector as a non-voting member, and one outside member from the private sector appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Purpose of this committee would be: A. Oversee the establishment and maintenance of the County’s internal control structure. B. Oversee the quality of financial reporting activities. C. Oversee and monitor County compliance with internal controls, pertinent laws, regulations and standards. Failure to Audit D. Oversee the resources allocated to the internal control and internal audit functions. E. Receive regular briefings from the internal audit staff on all planned and inprocess audits. F. Study the Orange County paradigm to internal audits with a view to avoiding potential audit weaknesses. G. Review the possibility of separation of the duties of Auditor-Controller. The Auditor responsibilities would return to its elected status while the Controller responsibility would report to the CEO.
F69
The CEO is tasked by the CEO Ordinance to track BOS directives and to monitor their implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04
The BOS and CEO should develop an ongoing process to monitor how County agencies implement Grand Jury recommendations with which they agree. This process should ensure that each affected agency named in the report be made aware of actions other affected agencies are taking, including agencies headed by elected officials. The CEO should present semi-annual reports to the BOS and the Grand Jury on progress toward implementing those agreed-upon recommendations. This recommendation applies to all present and future Grand Jury reports that address County agencies and operations. (C-09)
F70
The 2002-03 Grand Jury report “Independent Auditing within Ventura County Government” recommended that the BOS establish an oversight mechanism such as an independent audit committee.
Related Recommendations (3)
R01
The Grand Jury urges the BOS to establish an independent Ventura County Audit Committee by ordinance, using guidelines provided by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA, Ref-01). Because many of the County agencies that would be audited report to the CEO, the CEO should not recruit or recommend members for the Audit Committee in order to ensure the integrity of the audit process and the independence of the Committee. Although the function of the Audit Committee is to support the efforts of the Auditor-Controller and work cooperatively with that office, independence of the Audit Committee also requires that its members not be recruited or recommended by the Auditor-Controller. (C-01, C-05, C-12, C-17)
R1
In order to insure that the County meets the newer standards for independent audit the Board of Supervisors establish an effective oversight mechanism to insure adequate audit resources and independence.
R2
The Grand Jury recommends the establishment of an Audit Oversight Committee reporting to the Board of Supervisors. This committee would be charged with responsibility for oversight of internal controls and independent audits within the County. It would be composed of a Chair, a Co-Chair, The Chief Executive Officer, the Auditor-Controller, the Treasurer–Tax collector as a non-voting member, and one outside member from the private sector appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Purpose of this committee would be: A. Oversee the establishment and maintenance of the County’s internal control structure. B. Oversee the quality of financial reporting activities. C. Oversee and monitor County compliance with internal controls, pertinent laws, regulations and standards. Failure to Audit D. Oversee the resources allocated to the internal control and internal audit functions. E. Receive regular briefings from the internal audit staff on all planned and inprocess audits. F. Study the Orange County paradigm to internal audits with a view to avoiding potential audit weaknesses. G. Review the possibility of separation of the duties of Auditor-Controller. The Auditor responsibilities would return to its elected status while the Controller responsibility would report to the CEO.
F71
The responses from the BOS, CEO, and Auditor-Controller to recommendations R-1 and R-2 in the 2002-03 Grand Jury report were generally positive.
No recommendations for this finding
F72
The Auditor-Controller agreed to coordinate with the BOS and the CEO to determine the best course of action in the establishment of an Audit Oversight Committee by September 30, 2003.
No recommendations for this finding
F73
Action to create an Audit Oversight Committee was never taken. Conclusions C-01. By State law, the Auditor-Controller, an elected official, is charged with responsibilities normally associated with those of a chief financial officer. The independence and effectiveness of the Auditor-Controller to perform essential elements of its statutory requirements, including operational audits for the County of Ventura, have been negatively impacted over the past six years. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-09, F-40, F-54) C-02. Beginning with the adoption of County Ordinance No. 4235 (CEO Ordinance), the Auditor-Controller’s audit function has been compromised by reduced audit staff, reduced budgeted salaries, and potentially insufficient budget for engaging outside auditors. (F-05, F-07, F-18, F-21,
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 3
-
CL1 Page 10The CEO failed to comply with the CEO Ordinance by not budgeting sufficient resources to maintain an effective audit program within the Audit Division, relying instead on each department to audit itself.
-
CL2 Page 10The BOS failed to ensure that the CEO was in compliance with the CEO Ordinance. The BOS ignored repeated requests from the Auditor-Controller for resources needed to audit internal controls of all County agencies and their departments. The BOS failed to heed prior Grand Jury concerns about the Public Guardian’s Office and the Audit Division and failed to implement recommendations based on those concerns.
-
CL3 Page 10The Auditor-Controller’s requests for resources lacked sufficient justification and urgency to convince the BOS to override objections by the CEO. (F-09, F-10, F-13, F-16, F-17, F-18, F-23, F-31, F-34 through F-40, F-44, F-46, F-47, F-49) C-10. Each County agency is responsible for developing and implementing its own internal controls, with little or no external oversight into the effectiveness of those controls and whether there is compliance. This lack of external oversight creates risk of further losses for the County. (F-33, F-34, F-35, F-44, F-46, F-47, F-48) 10 Failure to Audit C-11. In addition to financial losses, the County has exposed itself to loss from ineffective procedures and practices as a consequence of significantly reduced auditing capability. (F-35, F-36, F-38, F-51) C-12. A properly constituted audit committee would enhance the independence of and provide a direct communication link between the Auditor-Controller and the BOS. An audit committee would also reduce the dependence of the BOS upon the technical expertise provided by the CEO. (F-08, F-09, F-10, F-13, F-18, F-63, F-64, F-65) C-13. The CEO has control of the agendas for BOS meetings, determining what issues will be presented for action. Effectively, elected officials must defer to the appointed CEO when they want BOS actions. (F-06, F-08, F-11) C-14. The CEO has failed to comply with the provision in the CEO Ordinance that mandates maintenance of “… an adequate internal auditing system.” Budgets for the Auditor-Controller developed by the CEO have left the Audit Division understaffed and with primarily junior-level personnel. As a consequence of denying appeals from the Auditor-Controller for additional resources, the BOS accepts this violation of its CEO Ordinance and is thus responsible for the consequences of an ineffective audit program. The Auditor-Controller must share in that responsibility by not presenting a sufficiently forceful argument to the BOS to override the CEO’s recommended budget for the Auditor-Controller. (F-09, F-10, F-13, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-21, F-23, F-27, F-31, F-34, F-35) C-15. The Auditor-Controller established a tri-annual Internal Control Self- Assessment Program, which the CEO and BOS endorsed. The head of each agency was required to ensure that its departments complete a detailed questionnaire to identify weaknesses in their internal controls. The Audit Division was responsible for reviewing the questionnaires to determine completeness, noting problem areas, assisting agencies with developing corrective procedures, and performing audits to ensure implementation of procedures. This program proved inadequate to ensure that the internal controls in the various County agencies were enforced. Not all agencies responded to the questionnaire. Audit Division staff is not adequate to review the questionnaires and follow up on their findings. (F-44, F-46, F-47, F-48) C-16. The BOS and CEO have ignored repeated warnings by the Auditor- Controller regarding the weakening of the Audit Division. The Audit Division’s inability to “… establish a meaningful audit program for the County …” contributed to an environment where theft and embezzlement in the Public Guardian’s Office were made possible. (F-21, F-23, F-27, F-29, F-30, F-31, F-34, F-36 through F-40) C-17. The CEO Ordinance has concentrated the County’s fiscal and financial operations in the CEO’s Office. Inadequate budget resources in the Auditor-Controller’s Audit Division have reduced that organization’s ability to provide an effective County audit function. A key consequence is the dilution of the checks and balances needed in government to ensure the Failure to Audit 11
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 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Ventura County Auditor-Controller
Elected County Office
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office