Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
• Agency Response
RIO Linda/elverta Community RIO Linda Water District Received*
⚠️ 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 3 findings
F1
District directors on the whole do not have financial or accounting backgrounds. They rely on their audit reports to ensure their district's operation is fiscally sound. The District agrees with finding #1.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Grand Jury finds that an electorate, kept unaware by a district that fails to "give light" to its actions, cannot properly evaluate the performance of district personnel. These voters elect boards to oversee the operation of the district. The board in turn hires a general manager to manage the district. It is the close relationship between the board and the general manager that has the potential for misuse of district funds. We find that the use of district credit cards may enable the misuse of district funds; however, it is the culture within the district that permits the abuse. District managers and board members should be aware of what is and what is not proper. Golf at district expense is not proper. Expensive restaurant meals charged to the district is not proper. Increasing the retirement benefits to a level primarily give [sic] to public safety personnel to benefit a retiring general manager is not proper. The District agrees with Finding #2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Auditors should confirm water districts' compliance with IRS rules, that all income is being reported, that boards actively oversee payments to management, and that all financial records are maintained for at least five years. This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented when the District sends out "Requests for Proposals" for auditing services for the 2003-04 Fiscal Year. That portion of this recommendation regarding maintaining financial records will not be implemented because it is not warranted and not reasonable. Verification by an outside auditor that records are being kept for a five-year period would be expensive and the District has adequate controls in place to deal with this situation. Financial recordkeeping is not the responsibility of the auditor, but rather the General Manager in accordance with District Resolution 2002-09, California Government Code § 60200 - 60203 and California Water Code § 21403.
F3
Some written practices and policies, which vary from district to district, may be outdated. The District agrees with Finding #3.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
In an effort to obtain a thorough and professional annual audit, auditors should be changed every three years. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. In order to conduct a thorough audit the auditing firm must have familiarity with the operations of the District. This can only be achieved through experience reviewing the district's financial operations and records. A three-year period is too short for an auditor to obtain a high-level of familiarity with the District. The District will, however, change auditors at least every five years. 100
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.