Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Internal Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Augusta committee backs creating an internal audit department, debates employee vs. contractor model
Summary
A Charter Review Committee discussed creating an internal audit department to sit outside regular management, funding and oversight by an audit oversight committee, and whether the role should be an employee or an external firm; members asked staff to draft charter language and place it on next week’s agenda.
Members of Augusta’s Charter Review Committee spent the bulk of a work session debating a proposed internal audit department intended to increase oversight and transparency in city operations.
The group reviewed a memo titled “internal auditor issues to clarify and resolve” and focused on item b, which “creates an internal audit department.” Committee members debated whether the function should be a city employee reporting to an oversight committee or an outside contracted firm. “Item b creates an internal audit department,” a committee speaker said while introducing the section. Several members argued an internal employee better guarantees the function is funded and sustained: one participant warned that an external contract could be defunded by the commission, effectively eliminating the audit function.
Advisers and finance staff described the tradeoffs. An outside contractor can bring specialized skills but raises procurement and cost uncertainty; an internal auditor provides continuity and day‑to‑day presence. A committee member noted, “Capital budgets form a different beast entirely,” as an example of how timing and staffing affect execution — a comment the group used to illustrate how audit work and budgeting interact. Committee advisers recommended the charter distinguish internal audit staffing from the state‑mandated annual external audit to avoid confusion in procurement and qualifications sections.
On oversight, the committee discussed composition of an audit oversight committee to preserve independence from management. The recommended composition heard in the meeting was the mayor, the mayor pro tem, the chair of the finance committee and two at‑large members with audit or financial expertise — a five‑member panel that would direct the internal auditor and submit the auditor’s budget as a separate line item. Several members emphasized excluding management personnel (finance director, city manager) from the oversight committee to avoid conflicts of interest.
The committee also considered required qualifications and term length for the internal auditor; five years’ relevant experience was mentioned as a minimum benchmark and advisers said terms of two, four or five years are common in peer jurisdictions. Members asked staff to collect market salary data and term‑length precedents before finalizing charter text.
Regarding authority and operations, the group agreed the internal auditor should be able to request or hire necessary staff within budget parameters but that hires must conform to HR policies and anti‑nepotism safeguards. The committee discussed confidentiality exceptions for audit reports tied to active criminal investigations and settled on drafting language that makes final reports public except where a law‑enforcement or prosecutorial process requires temporary withholding.
Members directed staff to draft clear charter language reflecting those points and to place the item on the main CRC agenda for a formal vote next week. The committee asked the consultants to provide sample term lengths, a salary range, and model language distinguishing internal audit duties from the annual external audit. The internal audit discussion was the committee’s longest single topic and ended with a broad consensus to advance the concept to the main agenda and to return with specific, revised language.
