Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deschutes County commissioners debate internal‑audit authority, access to body‑cam and election systems
Summary
A lengthy work session focused on the county audit program, with commissioners, the auditor and audit‑committee members debating whether internal auditors should access sensitive body‑camera footage and election IT materials or whether peer review and external law‑enforcement review are more appropriate.
Commissioners, the county auditor and audit‑committee members spent much of Dec. 1 debating the role and authority of the county internal audit program, access to sensitive data (including sheriff’s body‑camera footage and the clerk’s election‑IT materials), and proposed code revisions to clarify the audit committee’s responsibilities.
The auditor told the board she had been asked by the audit committee to review body‑camera practices and election IT controls but said she could not draw audit conclusions without access to evidence and described options for protecting sensitive information — including confidential reports, restricted handling procedures and law‑enforcement certification for staff handling CJIS data. Commissioners and audit‑committee representatives proposed alternatives including peer reviews by other elected auditors or law‑enforcement agencies to reduce legal and political friction while still providing independent assurance.
Several commissioners expressed concern about the political sensitivity of the topics and about an incident during which a third‑party benefits administrator (referred to as PacificSource in the audit discussion) shared more information than intended in response to an audit request; that incident underscored the need to tighten data‑handling controls. The board discussed a proposed set of code revisions to chapter 2.14 to more clearly define audit‑committee governance and the scope of audits. Commissioners emphasized they support an independent audit function while seeking clearer governance language to manage sensitive, politically charged reviews.
Why it matters: The county’s audit program is by choice and has wide discretion under county code; how the county resolves access and governance questions will affect trust in election administration, law enforcement accountability and the scope of future audits.
What’s next: Commissioners asked staff and the audit committee to take up proposed code revisions, consider protocols for peer review or external reviewers for sensitive data, and return with clarified language and a follow‑up meeting.
