Item B - Ind. External Auditor - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"insider management for decades and decades" and she found the auditor a timely initiative. She would not support an auditor that was not independent. Mr. Pap~ said that Mr. Rayor's motion answered the issue of whether the position was focused on financial or performance auditing. He agreed that the City could easily contract with independent financial auditors and there was no reason to increase the City staff for that purpose. He found the motion to be a workable compromise. If a performance auditor was established, Mr. Pap~ wanted the council to see the auditor's reports, but he did not think he wanted the council to manage the auditor. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion for the reasons he opposed the previous motion. He suggested that the notion that an internal employee auditor would not form alliances was ludicrous. If the council wanted an independent audit, he did not see how that could be accomplished internally. Mr. Meisner believed that if the council was dissatisfied with the performance of the auditor and wanted to dismiss that individual, it could encounter great difficulty. He also thought it ludicrous to assume that the council would hire a single auditor who would have substantive knowledge of every program in the city; that person would have to hire or contract outside the organization for assistance. Mr. Meisner said if the council wanted independent audits, it should contract for them. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to Mr. Rayor for his motion, but said he could not support it. Other than the confirmation by the council, the motion would add nothing to the charter that the manager could not accomplish now. Speaking to Mr. Papa's suggestion that the amendment to the motion clarified the nature of the auditor, Mr. Kelly pointed out the text offered by Mr. Rayor was taken from the CCRC's proposal, so it was as clear or as vague as that original text. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly said he wished he shared her optimism about the success of contracted audits. He agreed they were valuable for specific purposes. He suggested that a key difference between a council-directed auditor and manager-directed auditor was the perception of independence. Mr. Kelly said that the council could direct the City Manager to contract with an independent auditor, but then staff was responsible for writing and overseeing the contract. It was Ms. Taylor's perception that the focus of the discussion was on performance auditing rather than financial auditing. She did not think the council had the ability to manage the organization adequately now. She pointed out that performance auditors did not audit all the departments at the same time, but rather one at a time. She believed that the issue was not one of fraud, but having someone outside the organization telling the council if the City was run efficiently. The council had no way of knowing that now. She did not believe that the council had a way to manage the manager. With regard to her remarks that the council was not allowed to manage, Ms. Taylor pointed out that the council had been asked not to contact the executive managers directly. She thought the council was a long way from being able to ask the managers the reasons for what they did and suggest alternative actions. Ms. Taylor termed the amendment to the motion "useless" and suggested that the council was setting itself up for a charter amendment proposal for an independent auditor from the voters. Mr. Kelly solicited another round of comments.