Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Follow Up topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City auditor outlines quarterly follow-up process, cites risk-based field reviews
Summary
City auditors told the Government Audit and Oversight Committee they use risk-based field follow-ups and regular 6‑month/1‑year/2‑year checks to verify whether departments implement recommendations; high‑risk audits (PUC, airport contractor, fire payroll) will receive deeper testing.
Tanya Ledes, director of audits in the Controller’s Office, told the Government Audit and Oversight Committee on May 10 that the value of audit work lies in departments’ implementing recommendations, not merely issuing findings. “The benefit of auditing is the implementation of the recommendations,” she said, and outlined the office’s two follow-up tracks: a regular follow-up for all reports and a field follow-up that tests evidence on selected high‑risk recommendations.
Ledes said regular follow-ups require departments to report implementation status at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years; field follow-ups use a risk‑based selection that prioritizes large financial impact, weaknesses that increase fraud risk, and public‑safety concerns. She cited the San Francisco Charter Section 1.105 as the authority for annual reporting by auditees and said the office will continue pursuing active items beyond the normal 2‑year cycle when departments do not respond.
The office defines outcome labels for recommendations: open (not fully implemented), contested (department indicates it will not implement), closed (department reports implementation or the recommendation becomes no longer relevant), active (no response received), and elapsed (not all recommendations closed at the 2‑year follow‑up). Ledes cautioned that “closed” in regular follow‑ups reflects what departments report and does not substitute for the attest work performed only in field follow‑ups.
Ledes summarized the quarter (January–March) and said CSA is conducting field testing on several large audits, including testing 18 of 26 recommendations for the Parsons Water System Improvement Program and a second follow‑up at the Office of Citizens Complaints. Completed field work cited by Ledes included central subway indirect rate review (all tested recommendations implemented) and a Port Smith follow‑up with mixed results.
The committee asked how the Auditor’s Office works with departments when specialized expertise is needed; Ledes said auditors and departments coordinate to engage outside experts when necessary and noted that the office also participates in Emerge system testing to reduce future payroll and time‑tracking inconsistencies.
The auditor’s office said its quarterly memo and supporting materials would be posted to the CSA website and that items discussed would appear on the May 22 Board of Supervisors agenda when appropriate.
