El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
• Agency Response
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, Accounting Practices, Citizen Complaint #c1-02/03(pdf, 136kb)
⚠️ 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 5 findings
F1
Page 1
The Consultant performed audits for GDPUD from 1981 through 1995 in addition to certain
F2
Page 1
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Generally Accepted Auditing
F3
Page 1
It appears no Management Representation Letter was presented to the auditor for the fiscal
F4
Page 1
The General Manager signed a Management Representation Letter for the fiscal year ending
F5
Page 1
The Consultant did not have a written contract for accounting services until 2001. There
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 1An independent audit firm should conduct the annual audit.
-
R2Page 1Proper letters of engagement and management representation should be prepared for the
-
R3Page 1Board Members and the General Manager should not allow a self-audit or the appearance of
-
R4Page 1GDPUD should enter into contracting services with a clear statement and understanding by