📋
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.
⚠️ 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 3 findings
F3
Page 49
The County Audit Committee final review meeting was scheduled one hour prior to final audit presentation to the Board of Supervisors.
F4
Page 49
The Board of Supervisors representatives were not present at any of the County Audit Committee meetings.
F5
Page 49
The two members of the 2009-2010 Grand Jury Audit Committee had substantial professional work experience in public sector finance and accounting that made their participation on the County Audit Committee reasonably easy. Future years’ Grand Jury participants may not have that sort of professional background.
Recommendations 4
-
R2Page 49The County Auditor/Controller should release the final audit report within a reasonable timeframe to allow for Grand Jury review and questions prior to the scheduled County Audit Committee final review meeting.
-
R3Page 49The County Audit Committee final review should take place at least one week prior to presentation of the report to the Board of Supervisors to allow for any necessary changes found during the final audit review.
-
R4Page 49The two members of the Board of Supervisors appointed to the County Audit Committee should attend the meetings.
-
R5Page 49The County Auditor/Controller, as committee facilitator, needs to be highly sensitive to the diverse backgrounds of the Grand Juror participants to assure full understanding of both the governmental audit process, as well as, any resulting