📋
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.
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 1994-1995
A report on the work of the Committee that selects and monitors the Contract
⚠️ 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 10 findings
F1
Municipalities (Government Operations). Initial Domestic Violence Programs and Service Investigations-Preliminary Study (Criminal
F2
Justice). Original Funding Source for the Los Angeles Airport (Government Operations).
F3
Review of Water Management Policy Alternatives (Environmental Services).
F4
Review of Court Practices, Citrus Judicial District Model, Judges Training and legislation
F5
with Regard to Domestic Violence (Criminal Justice). Review of Resources for Domestic Violence (Criminal Justice).
F6
Analysis of Backlog in Hospital Outpatient Clinics (Health Services).
F7
Review of County Services for the Homeless with Psychiatric Disabilities (Health Services).
F8
Covina Valley Unified School District Building Safety and Maintenance Practices (Human
F9
Services). Review of Los Angeles County Financial Tracking and Management Control-Limited Study 10. (Government Operations).
F10
(Government Operations).
Recommendations 10
-
R1including individual audit approval, tracking, and completion. The Audit Committee, in conjunction with an investigating committee, works closely with the
-
R2auditor during the process of defining the scope of an investigative topic. Scope changes to the auditor contract are negotiated only by the Audit Committee after
-
R3discussion with the auditor and concerned chairman and, if substantial, approved by the Grand Jury. Telephone or person-to-person contacts with the auditor should be limited and discussed with
-
R4at least the Audit Committee chairman. Meetings with the auditor shall be scheduled by the Audit Committee.
-
R5When a topic has been approved by the Grand Jury for investigation, the Audit Committee
-
R6will negotiate the task contract subject to final approval by the Grand Jury. During the course of an audit investigation, regular status/progress reports will be made by
-
R7the auditor to the Audit Committee and then transmitted to the concerned committee and in summary to the Grand Jury. Direct contacts between the concerned committee members and the auditor are generally
-
R8limited to the committee chairman or a designated spokesperson. Interactions of substance shall include a representative of the Audit Committee. As the program developed it became evident that status reports on all topics under investigation by the auditor would be required at least every other week. This was agreed to and implemented by the auditor, and written reports followed the next working day by oral presentations. Completed investigation reports were delivered by the auditor in essentially finished form; i.e., in the same processor format used by the Grand Jury and including delivery of a compatible diskette as well as printed copies. For those reports too lengthy to be included in the final report direct, the auditor prepared an executive summary. FINDINGS A total of ten investigations were undertaken with the auditor. One was terminated before completion. Several were expanded from preliminary studies. Full copies of each completed investigation are available for the public in the Grand Jury Office. The investigations and the responsible committees were: 2
-
R9Services). Review of Los Angeles County Financial Tracking and Management Control-Limited Study
-
R10(Government Operations). RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends to the Board of Supervisors: Resist any further reductions in the audit budget for the Grand Jury. The vital function of the