Superior Court of the Sate of California,*

California Government Code §25250 requires counties to audit their departments every two- years. The ACO's use of "Follow-Up" and "Change of Department Head" audits to fulfill this legal requirement violates California law. Supported by Facts 1.1 and 3.1

Professional Standard 1100 requires the Internal Audit Unit be independent. With the Internal Audit Unit included within the ACO's "Audits and Specialized Accounting Division," the Internal Audit Unit is not completely independent. Hence, the ACO is not complying with Standard 1100. Supported by Fact 2.1

The County's internal audits are marginalized and, in many cases, just ignored. Supported by Facts 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9

The County's Internal Audit Unit members do not have the combined knowledge, skill, and experience to perform their responsibilities as required by Standard 1210. Supported by Facts 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 3.2

The County consistently fails to rectify known limitations in its Internal Audit Unit. Supported by Facts 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, and 2.10

The County's Internal Audit Unit members lack professional certifications and experience in critical areas, which in turns exposes the County to potential financial and operational risks. Supported by Facts 2.9, 2.10, 3.3, and 3.4

The County's lack of an audit oversight committee has resulted in some high-risk areas missed by internal audits for several years. Supported by Facts 1.4, 1.5, 2.9, 2.10, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.10

The County's internal audit reports do not provide the Board and Executive Office with (a) summary information about the seriousness of its findings, (b) likelihood of negative impacts to the County, or (c) how quickly corrections need to be made. Supported by Fact 3.10

The County's follow-up internal audit reports do not provide the Board and Executive Office with summary information on the status of departments implementing required corrective actions. Supported by Fact 3.11

The County lacks summary reports and a monitoring mechanism that provides the Board and Executive Office with the following types of reports: Bi-Annual Systemic Internal Audit Findings Reports • Annual Risk Assessment and Management Plan • Quarterly Internal Audit Status Reports . Contract Monitoring Reports • Countywide Risk Management Dashboard • Supported by Facts 1.2, 1.5, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13

An internal audit charter is a formal document that defines the internal audit activity's purpose, authority, and responsibility, including access to confidential records. The County's internal audit charter has not been updated in 39 years. The County's internal charter is outdated and does not comply with Standard 1010. Supported by Fact 1.3

Dysfunctional working relationships among County and department leaders significantly hinders the effectiveness of internal audits. Supported by Facts 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 DISCUSSION Governmental agencies that strive for excellence engage in two general activities: (1) actively seek ways to assess their current effectiveness to provide services to their constituents and (2) aggressively take steps to improve. Their attitude is to continuously improve and not settle for the status quo. Riverside County has the opportunity to transform its current use of internal audits from primarily ignored to highly effective tools to monitor compliance with financial laws, policies, and procedures. One of the many lessons learned from the 1994 Orange County, California bankruptcy was that internal audits play a critical role in to preventing serious financial problems and help to improve county procedures. The Board, Executive Office, and ACO have known about the issues surrounding internal audits for many years and have not yet taken the steps necessary to resolve them. Unlike Orange County in the 1990s, Riverside County's Board, Executive Office, and ACO have the opportunity to be proactive in establishing the importance of internal audits and resolve outstanding issues surrounding the County's internal audits. Riverside County has changed dramatically in the past decade. However, the County appears to be content with the status quo. The Grand Jury is not aware of anyone who advocates for improvements within the ACO. Other department leaders do advocate for their departments to receive additional funds, additional personnel, and/or resources. In conclusion, the Board, Executive Office, and ACO have the opportunity to demonstrate their leadership abilities by transforming the current ineffectual internal audit system into a highly effective one. The question is, "Will they?"