Responses to report 2602

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F1; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F2; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Says internal audit is an inherent core responsibility of an auditor-controller’s office.

Audit analysis

Position is implied rather than explicit; institutional responsibility does not squarely explain the asserted independence threat or its safeguards. No supporting record is identified.

Response says

Partially disagrees, citing annual IOC review of prior activities and approval of the next audit plan.

Audit analysis

Identifies plan approval as disputed and gives a concrete oversight account, but does not resolve charter approval, direct report receipt, or the distinction between impairment in fact and appearance.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F9; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F10; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F11; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Disagrees: the cited standards set no minimum meeting count; says current reporting and Single Audit and Measure X presentations supply oversight.

Audit analysis

Gives a finding-specific standards interpretation and identifies other audit presentations. Engagement does not establish that the interpretation or current practice satisfies professional standards.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F13; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F14; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F15; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Partially disagrees: IOC reviews activities and approves plans; acknowledges highest-risk discussion could be more explicit.

Audit analysis

Separates existing oversight from the admitted risk-discussion gap with concrete assertions; no particular plan or meeting record is identified.

Response says

Partially disagrees: IOC approves the next plan, followed by separate Board review and approval.

Audit analysis

Directly disputes lack of prior input/approval through an asserted sequence; no dated plan or approval record is supplied.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F22; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F23; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F28; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Requires further analysis; IAD will remain within the Auditor-Controller, while the County will identify and mitigate conflicts and self-review threats.

Audit analysis

Explains rejection of relocation while proposing safeguards. No analysis scope or completion date is given.

Response says

Requires further analysis; Board will require an independence safeguards framework under IIA Standard 7.1.

Audit analysis

Does not expressly address GAGAS, recusal, independent review, or segregation of ACFR duties. No agency completion date is stated.

Response says

Will require annual disclosure of independence threats and safeguards to the Finance Committee by January 1, 2027.

Audit analysis

Concrete commitment changes the recipient from IOC/proposed Audit Committee to Finance Committee and cites IIA rather than GAGAS. Preserve that scope.

Response says

Will require annual Finance Committee review of independence, safeguards and impairments by January 1, 2027.

Audit analysis

Explicit future action substitutes Finance Committee for IOC; implementation remains an agency promise.

Response says

Declines quarterly IOC reporting, arguing standards impose no specific minimum number of engagements; Finance Committee will reorganize oversight.

Audit analysis

Explains refusal of the requested frequency; does not promise quarterly reporting under a different committee.

Response says

Declines a new separate Audit Committee; will consolidate internal and external oversight within Finance Committee.

Audit analysis

Refusal and alternative institutional arrangement are explicit; consolidation is not the proposed new committee.

Response says

Declines proposed membership rules, citing collective expertise of committee members, County officials and external auditors.

Audit analysis

Explains expertise alternative but does not directly explain rejection of an independent public member or minimum membership count.

Response says

States that the recommendation will be implemented.

Audit analysis

Future acceptance is explicit, but gives no implementation steps or independently stated completion timetable. The recommendation’s date is not recorded as a separately confirmed agency promise.

Response says

States that the recommendation will be implemented.

Audit analysis

Future acceptance is explicit, but gives no implementation steps or independently stated completion timetable. The recommendation’s date is not recorded as a separately confirmed agency promise.

Response says

States that the recommendation will be implemented.

Audit analysis

Future acceptance is explicit, but gives no implementation steps or independently stated completion timetable. The recommendation’s date is not recorded as a separately confirmed agency promise.

Response says

States that the recommendation will be implemented.

Audit analysis

Future acceptance is explicit, but gives no implementation steps or independently stated completion timetable. The recommendation’s date is not recorded as a separately confirmed agency promise.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F1; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F2; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Disagrees, citing public-sector IIA guidance, the elected office’s independence from audited departments, and the claimed absence of GAGAS audits.

Audit analysis

Identifies the whole disputed independence proposition and reasons grounded in named standards/manual. This does not verify audit practices or independence.

Response says

Partially disagrees: accepts an unmitigated threat in appearance under IIA but rejects a GAGAS impairment because IAD does not conduct GAGAS audits.

Audit analysis

Clearly distinguishes accepted and disputed scope and explains its standards interpretation using the Policies and Procedures Manual.

Response says

Partially disagrees: accepts ACFR participation and management responsibility, but says staff are non-supervisory management under the Local 21 MOU.

Audit analysis

Identifies an inference the respondent disputes and cites a checkable employment agreement; the formal finding itself does not explicitly say staff are non-management.

Response says

Disagrees because IAD does not perform GAGAS audits; says the manual is being revised to remove GAGAS references.

Audit analysis

Explains the standards objection but does not squarely discuss whether preparing and auditing the same processes creates a self-review threat under other applicable standards.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F7; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F8; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F16; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F17; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F18; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Partially disagrees: no formal proactive input process exists, but Board and executives have supplied requests incorporated into annual plans.

Audit analysis

Separates lack of formal process from asserted informal input; no particular request or annual plan is identified.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F24; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F25; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F26; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F27; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Agrees with the finding without additional explanation.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement engages F28; the response adds no finding-specific reasoning or independently checkable support. Agreement is not independent verification.

Response says

Will not implement in its entirety: directs IIA compliance, rejects GAGAS compliance and is removing GAGAS references from the manual.

Audit analysis

Provides a reasoned partial refusal citing Government Code Section 1236. Disposition preserves refusal rather than implying acceptance of both standards.

Response says

Will analyze ACFR assignments during September–December 2026, consider reassignment beginning with the June 30, 2027 year-end process, and document independence safeguards.

Audit analysis

Describes staffing/experience constraints and analysis rather than a blanket prohibition by January 1.

Response says

Promises partial implementation: an IIA Standard 7.1 safeguards framework developed and in use by January 1, 2027; rejects GAGAS applicability.

Audit analysis

Concrete date and narrower standards scope are stated; completion is not verified.

Response says

Promises partial implementation: communicate identified threats and safeguards to IOC by January 1, 2027, excluding GAGAS-related audits.

Audit analysis

Retains partial label and scope; does not expressly repeat the recommendation’s annual cadence.

Response says

Will develop an IAD charter by January 1, 2027.

Audit analysis

Specific deliverable and date are given, not evidence of an adopted charter.

Response says

Will implement a documented IIA risk-assessment methodology by April 1, 2027.

Audit analysis

Agency date is three months later than the recommendation’s January 1 date.

Response says

Will revise the manual and administrative bulletin for documented risk-based planning, submitting bulletin updates for County Administrator concurrence; completion by January 1, 2027.

Audit analysis

Identifies documents, process and date; concurrence is part of the stated workflow, not verified approval.

Response says

Will require documented Board, oversight-committee and senior-leadership input by January 1, 2027.

Audit analysis

Explicit input-process commitment and date.

Response says

Claims implementation because IAD has been directed to move to fiscal-year planning beginning FY2027–28.

Audit analysis

The claimed completed act is the direction; future fiscal-year transition is not independently verified as complete.

Response says

Will adopt an ongoing quality program as part of IIA compliance, anticipated by December 1, 2027; excludes GAGAS.

Audit analysis

Anticipated compliance date is a year after the recommendation’s December 1, 2026 deadline and is not an unconditional completion guarantee.

Response says

Declines an external quality review as written until IIA standards have been followed for at least a year.

Audit analysis

Explains sequencing/resource rationale; gives no fixed future review date.

Response says

Will periodically distribute audit reports and management responses to Finance Committee as part of IIA compliance.

Audit analysis

Recipient differs from IOC/proposed Audit Committee and no explicit delivery date is supplied.

Response says

Will post charter and plan after Finance Committee approval and annually post completed IIA-compliant audit reports.

Audit analysis

Conditional approvals and limitation to IIA-compliant reports remain explicit; no independent completion date.