Laserfiche WebLink
With regards to Councilwoman Pisicchio's interest, she initiated Resolution 49-01 authorizing the <br />independent evaluation. She participated in the evaluation of the two bids received in response to <br />the Council's Request for Proposals along with the other evaluation team members Liana Cox- <br />Ishizu and Rory Flynn of the Auditor's Office. With assistance from our office, Ms. Pisicchio <br />scheduled and hosted two evening public meetings to facilitate public testimony to the two -member <br />NACA site visit team on June 6, 2001 at the County Councilroom in Hilo and June 8`h at the Kona <br />Outdoor Circle in Kona. To promote public input and discussion with the visiting NACA team, she <br />placed ads at her own expense in the West Hawaii Today and the Hawaii Tribune Herald to notify <br />the public of the scheduled public meetings. On June 11, 2001, Ms. Pisicchio, Legislative <br />Assistant Rory Flynn and I participated in a one-hour "exit interview" (conference call) with John <br />Mays and Mary Metzner of NACA. The exit interview or conference is also standard in audit <br />reviews. <br />GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS, RESOLUTION NO. 131-97 AND <br />REPORTING PROTOCOL <br />The procedure for releasing the draft NACA report as a public document has been questioned. <br />This procedure has been applied to all prior independent financial audit reports and numerous <br />special studies and performance/program reviews conducted by this office for at least two decades. <br />This procedure generally reflects the reporting standards of the U.S. General Accounting Office set <br />forth in the Government Auditing Standards (GAS), 1999 Edition known as the "Yellow Book" <br />being transmitted to you under separate cover. These audit protocols are used by government <br />auditors throughout this state and the nation, including State Auditor Marion Higa. <br />The purpose of the standards is to "help provide accountability and to assist public officials and <br />employees in carrying out their responsibilities. The standards are more than a codification of <br />current practices. They include concepts and audit areas that are still evolving and are vital to the <br />accountability objectives sought in auditing governments and their programs and services." (GAS <br />at page 8). Although we are not a true `audit' office under the present organizational structure, we <br />have historically applied many of the concepts to our reports because accountability and credibility <br />are significant attributes important to the council, county government and the people we serve. <br />When it relates to the process of obtaining agency comments, Chapter 7 of the Government <br />Accounting Standards, "Reporting Standards for Performance Audits: Views of Responsible <br />Officials," reads: <br />7.38 Auditors should report the views of responsible officials of the audited program concerning <br />auditors' findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as corrections planned. <br />7.39 One of the most effective ways to ensure that a report is fair, complete, and objective is to <br />obtain advance review and comments by responsible auditee officials and others, as may be <br />appropriate. Including the views of responsible officials produces a report that shows not only <br />what was found and what the auditors think about it but also what the responsible persons think <br />about it and what they plan to do about it. [emphasis added] <br />7.40 Auditors should normally request that the responsible officials' views on significant findings, <br />conclusions, and recommendations be submitted in writing. When, in these cases, written <br />comments are not obtained, oral comments should be requested. <br />7.41 Advance comments should be objectively evaluated and recognized, as appropriate, in the <br />report. Advance comments, such as a promise or plan for corrective action, should be noted but <br />