⚠️ 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
The current organizational structure of the Internal Audit Department satisfies the most rigid of requirements for independence and objectivity required by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Institute of Internal Auditors. These organizations specifically state that audit organizations must be free from organizational impairments to independence with respect to the entities they audit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Preserve the current organizational structure of the Internal Audit Department. This is defined in Resolution 95-271 as a separate independent department removed from the Auditor-Controller and reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors.
F2
The Audit Oversight Committee structure lacks representation from two of the primary stakeholders of the County Investment Pool: the educational institutions and other governmental entities in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Add additional members to the Audit Oversight Committee such as one appointed by the Orange County Board of Education to represent school districts and one appointed by the Orange County League of Cities to represent cities.
F3
After a resolution to revoke County Resolution 95-271 and return the Internal Audit Department to the Auditor Controller’s office failed to pass, the Auditor-Controller refused to renew the existing contract with IAD to perform audits mandated by state statue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Authorize the Internal Audit Department to perform separate Quarterly Audits of the Statements of Assets held by the County Treasury for the Board of Supervisors to re- establish the Board’s independent audit presence in the Treasurer’s Office, even though the Auditor-Controller has statutory authority to conduct these mandated audits Responses to Recommendation R-1 through R-3 are required from the Board of Supervisors REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 10
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.