HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0573.001 2002-2004 Mrr.or._
JAMES Y. ARAKAKI u ~ Phone: (SOR) 961-8272
,tit,
t 'haennan ~ Prerrdrng UJficer ~ I_ . ~ , ~ _ FAX: (808) 961-8912
COUNTY COUNCIL
(bunk e f.Hux~ai ~i
!Envoi "F ('ounn~ fled/din,G
: I npune .Ctreet
lldo, [ /aei m 7 96 ~?ll
April 6, 2004
Members of the Hawaii County Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
RE: Proposed Charter Amendment-County Auditor
Dear Council Members:
l'he purpose of this letter is to transmit Bill No. 255-04, Draft 2, regarding the proposed charter
amendment about the office of the county auditor. Draft 2 incorporates or clarifies the following
points made by State Auditor Marion Higa in the attached communication:
Page 3-
Section 3-_. Office Established; County Auditor.
(c) The county auditor may appoint the necessary staff for which appropriations
have been made by the council. Subject to the provisions of this charter and
applicable rules and regulations adopted thereunder, the auditor shall have
the same powers with respect to the personnel of the county auditor as
executive branch department heads have over their personnel. Staff shall be
exempt from civil service laws and classifications,and excluded from
collective bargaining.
Section 3- .Powers, Duties, and Functions.
(4) Follow-up audits and monitoring of [~~•°n~.] response to audits
reccomendations by audited entities.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
i
1 , a es Y. Arakaki, Chair
awai`i County Council
Arts. Comm. No. S73•
,(3,11 SS, IJ Ref. To:
Ref. Date 4
STATE OF HAWAII ~ "
P y,~,-',_,~ MARION M. HIGA
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR iy/ state Auditor
465 S. King Street, Room 500 " "
' € 1 (808) 587-0800
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2917 ~ ;3r`~ ~ ' ~ jjr._.' i i_l FAX: (808) 587-0830
- ~
. y,~''~CD'~I APB G A(~ 8 ~ 6
C
Apri12,2004 CC)Ui,ll' ``'`II
The Honorable .Tames Y. Arakal<i
Chair, Hawaii Cowrty Council
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96120
Dear Chair Arakaki:
Thank you for seeking my opinion on your proposed charter amenchnent to create an Office of
County Auditor.
My congratulations on this proposal.
The previous sentence should indicate my overall support; [similarly supported the charter
amendment for a Honolulu City Auditor that the Council here put forth and the voters ratified. I
note the many similarities between your proposal and the provisions for both my office and the
City Auditor here. One noteworthy provision in your proposal is the eight-year term, similar to
mine. In contrast, the City Auditor has asix-year term. As to the differences between your
proposal and the provisions for my office, I'm neutral, because these differences should rightly
reflect what the citizens of the I3ig Island want for their County Auditor. The major difference is
that by statute T do not audit the legislative branch. The City Auditor, however, is so authorized.
I have one suggestion and one question. 'fhe suggestion: on page 3 of the proposal under
Po~.~~ers, Duties, and Funetinns in Sectirm 3- lal(41, the term. "monitoring of compliance with
audit recommendations" might be more accurately stated as "monitoring of response to audit
recommcndations" if you agree with my argument as follows. 1 believe the terms "compliance"
and `recommendation" are mutually exclusive. A recommendation leaves to the auditee the
decision to agree or disagree with, or to ignore the recommendation to do something. The
auditor's authority should rightly be limited to msilcing recommendations and not include
enforcing compliance, for compliance is part of implementing a recommendation. This issue of
auditor involvement in implementing recommendations goes to the heart of auditor
independence that has been debated in the national audit community for some time now. I was
in the minority of the state auditor community that refused to assist agencies in implementing
recommendations. My question was always, "How will we assert our independence when we re-
audit an agency that we've worked with in implementing oar recommendations?" T believe we
would have been auditing ourselves. Increasingly, audit offices that had been involved in
The Honorable James Y. Arakal<i
April 2, ?004
Page 2
implementing their recommendations arc pulling back The shift has been accelerated by new
independence standards promulgated by the U.S. General Accounting Office for tlsose who
subscribe to generally accepted government auditing standards (as we do). These standards call
for even Icss of an appearance of conflict of interest than before on the part of auditors.
As to uiy question about the proposed charter amendment. [don't see a specitic reference to
exclude the County Auditor's staff frotn collective bat~gaining. So does the clause on page 3,
Office Established; County Auditor, Section 3- (c), line 4, "'as executive brands department
heads have over their personnel" include that exclusion`? The next sentence refers only to
exemption from civil service but not to exclusion from collective bargaining. Is this an oversight
or do you intend that the Coun[y Auditor's staff be included in collective bargaining? (My staff
are e~:cluded.)
i will contact you if T have any other thoughts on the proposal but 1 thiiilc it's commendable that
the Big Island is considering a sh~engthened audit function in the legislative brands. Feel free to
contact me again. Qest wishes as you move your county forward with this proposed charter
amendment.
Sincerel}'.
Marion M. Higa
State Auditor