Council debate stalls on removing CPA requirement for city auditor; citizen comment allowed

Colorado Springs officials discussed an ordinance to remove the certified public accountant requirement for the city auditor at the City Council meeting on Aug. 12, 2025, after city human resources staff recommended the CPA be downgraded from a required to a preferred qualification. The council did not adopt the ordinance that day; it failed to secure a second on a motion to table and later voted 8–1 to allow public comment on the item.

Why it matters: The city auditor oversees audits that inform the public about how city departments use taxpayer funds. Council members and outside auditors said the change could affect perceived independence and technical capacity for financial and performance audits, while HR staff said the internal-audit function is governed by Institute for Internal Auditors (IIA) standards rather than GAAS and that market comparators commonly list certifications as preferred, not required.

Human resources presentation and staff research

Myra Romero, chief human resources and risk officer, told the council that the city originally appointed Natalie Lovell as city auditor on March 11, 2025, with an express condition that she attain Colorado CPA certification within two years of appointment. Romero said HR’s further study found “neither the duties of the City Auditor nor industry standard require a CPA.” Romero described the IIA global internal audit standards as the governing professional standard for internal auditors and said the CPA is primarily an external‑audit credential.

Jack Sullivan, senior compensation analyst in HR, summarized the market review HR performed and said the city’s classification and posted minimums should reflect the core audit duties. “We really found that the CPA was not a requirement for the city auditor to perform their core work,” Sullivan said, adding that comparable job specifications in the marketplace more often treat certifications as preferred qualifications.

Arguments from council members and outside auditors

Councilman John Donaldson (first reference: Councilman John Donaldson) pushed back on the process and recommended additional study. Donaldson said the CPA requirement was part of the posted minimums when the city hired the current auditor and warned that removing it so soon after appointment looks like a post‑hire qualification change. “We posted a job saying this is the minimum qualification, then we hire somebody who doesn't have it,” Donaldson said in discussion; he later moved to table the ordinance, but his motion failed for lack of a second.

Councilman Hynchum (first reference: Councilman Hynchum) defended HR’s approach and the appointment, noting a letter the council received from the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA). Hynchum summarized ALGA’s point that auditors should have competent leadership demonstrated by relevant certifications or advanced degrees and experience; he added that the current auditor holds an MBA and additional professional certifications and that most audits the office conducts are performance or IT audits rather than financial audits.

Outside speakers who testified during public comment raised substantive objections. Denny Nestor, a former city auditor, said the incumbent made a commitment to obtain the CPA as a condition of appointment and described the proposed change as an ethics and credibility issue: “The City Auditor made an agreement, a commitment to obtain the CPA certification when she was hired,” Nestor said. Carl Nels, a former city CIO and part‑time information‑systems auditor, said credentials such as the CPA matter to auditees and the public and cautioned that removing the requirement could weaken confidence in audits.

Procedure and outcome at the meeting

Trevor Glass, deputy city attorney, clarified a procedural point during debate: “The motion for tabling has to be voted upon before any other motion,” and noted that a tabling motion requires a second. Donaldson’s motion to table the ordinance did not receive a second and therefore failed. Later in the discussion Donaldson moved to allow citizens to speak on item 10C; the council voted to allow public comment on that item by an 8–1 voice vote.

What remains unresolved

Council members requested more analysis and expressed differing views on whether the city should require a CPA, a different certification (for example, Certified Internal Auditor or similar), or an advanced‑degree/experience combination. HR said its market study did not collect hiring‑history data from other cities (that is, whether they actually hired CPAs even when the credential was not listed as a minimum), and HR did not interview former city auditors as part of its review. HR also said it would consult further on EEO implications if the council directs additional review.

Next steps noted in the meeting

No ordinance vote to remove the CPA requirement occurred during the Aug. 12 session. The council’s formal actions that day were a failed motion to table (no second) and a subsequent 8–1 vote to allow public comment on the item; several council members urged review by the audit committee or outside experts before any final change. Staff and civic auditors referenced ALGA and IIA guidance for further study, and some council members asked staff to return with comparables that include hiring practices (not only posted minimums) and recommended certification options if the CPA requirement is removed.

Speakers quoted and attributed in this article are drawn from the meeting record and include only individuals who spoke on this agenda item or in public comment about it.