Orange County Grand Jury • 2012-2013

An Investment and Compliance Review of the Orange County Treasurer

17 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 3 findings

F1
The Treasurer does not have a securities representative (staff member). The Treasurer shall consider the benefits of having a member of the investment team equity licensed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Treasurer shall consider the benefits of having a current staff member licensed as a Securities representative. (series 7, 51 and 63)
F2
Having a licensed securities representative on staff could be a conflict of interest.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Treasurer shall address the conflict of interest issues with having a securities licensed staff member.
F3
The Treasurer leverages several information systems for tax collection and investments. The majority are older legacy systems. These systems have limited flexibility and are expensive to change and enhance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Treasurer shall address the expense, time restraints and expectations related to improving the information systems. The California Penal Code §933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section §933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because or is not reasonable it is not warranted, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making aspects of the

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.