Continued use of Moss Adams LLP as Carson City’s internal auditing consultant and $90,000 in audit work for next fiscal year were recommended Tuesday by city government’s Audit Committee.
The committee voted 4-0 to recommend a program to the Board of Supervisors calling for continuation of basic internal auditing services for $10,000, reviewing internal controls for $40,000, working on the city’s strategic plan for $30,000 and continuing the waste, fraud and abuse hotline and investigation program for $10,000.
The committee’s budget allotment is $110,000, and the $20,000 unaccounted for in that program would be available on an “as-needed basis” if the city’s governing board approved the plan and another year with Moss Adams.
The committee also heard a report on the waste, fraud and abuse program and another on a performance framework for performance metrics that would eventually play into performance-based budgeting.
The former report sparked lengthy discussion that dealt with one complaint, the fact that the unnamed person who was the target of the complaint was cleared, and whether a written notification of that should go to that person. Supervisor Jim Shirk had appeared earlier on that matter, panel members said, in part to urge such written notification of the outcome go to that person.
Neither the target of the complaint nor the person complaining was identified. A Moss Adams spokesman and committee members said that was how the program was intended to work. There was no objection, however, to sharing the outcome with the person who was the subject of the complaint and subsequent investigation.
Supervisor John McKenna, who sits on the panel and earlier opposed the hotline program, noted the board had approved it 4-1 and said it should continue for at least three years.
“We spent the money; let’s see if it works,” said McKenna.
McKenna was skeptical during the presentation on a framework for performance metrics, but he did make the motion to move it along to the city’s full governing board. He expressed concern the framework might be misunderstood or misused. Michael Bertrand, committee chairman, had questions as well but said the framework can be changed going forward.
“It’s a great framework,” he said, but added that in looking it over he “wasn’t particularly sure why we were measuring this or that.”
The panel moved the performance framework on to the full board by a 3-1 vote tally with member John Bullis dissenting. He had raised questions about missing elements, among other things.
