Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate Auditor Office plan to reduce 100% review of AP/payroll entries
Summary
A work session discussion raised concerns after the Auditor's Office said it would move away from 100% reviews of audit payroll/AP module entries toward spot audits; commissioners debated oversight, purchasing gate improvements and the return on staff review time.
One of the work session items brought before the Utah County Board of County Commissioners concerned a change in Audit Office practice: staff had notified the commission that the Auditor’s Office would no longer provide 100% review recommendations in the audit payroll (AP) module and would instead rely on spot audits and internal audit planning.
The presiding commissioner said the full reviews were a tool commissioners used to see auditor comments and ask follow-up questions. The commissioner said they were concerned about losing visibility if reviews were reduced to spot checks.
A former county auditor on the commission argued that many of the historical comments in the auditor's review were unnecessary and sometimes created delays for purchases that already followed purchasing manager review. He said the county needed to weigh the "risk versus reward" and questioned whether the expense of a full review program was justified by the amount of problems it would catch. Other commissioners agreed that if there is a concern it must be communicated, but they also asked staff to strengthen purchasing system controls so problems are blocked before they reach audit review.
Commissioners asked HR, payroll and audit leaders to convene administratively and return with a clarified plan detailing what "spot audits" would cover, how often spot reviews would occur, and how auditors will escalate flagged issues to the commission. Commissioners suggested IT updates to the purchasing system — work the county identified on its project list — could address many of the underlying process gaps.
No formal action was taken on this item during the meeting; commissioners recommended follow-up and additional administrative review before any procedural change is implemented.
