Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Oversight topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council adopts municipal‑code language to implement Measure A, giving auditor access to independent counsel under audit‑committee oversight

San Diego City Council · April 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following audit‑committee work, the council added municipal‑code provisions implementing voter‑approved Measure A to permit the city auditor (and the audit committee) to retain independent legal counsel for audits and investigations subject to committee procedures and procurement rules; council approved the code change 8–1.

By an 8–1 vote the City Council on Tuesday approved municipal‑code language implementing Measure A, the voter‑approved change that gives the City Auditor and the Audit Committee access to independent legal counsel separate from the City Attorney.

The adopted code sets procedures and timelines: requests must be docketed to the audit committee within 30 days or at the next meeting; the audit committee designates one member to assist the auditor with procurement and evaluation of independent counsel; the committee must find that the proposed use of independent counsel is in the public interest (as defined by government auditing standards); and the auditor is required to follow city procurement rules and to pay invoices for independent counsel (a practice already used for the independent financial auditor).

City Auditor Andy Hemhouse and Assistant Auditor Matt Helm said the language was developed with the city attorney and an audit‑committee ad hoc subcommittee to balance independence with procurement and fiscal controls. The measure preserves council authority over budget and says the council will determine appropriate funding. The code also permits the committee and auditor to retain separate counsel when a conflict of interest, as defined by the State Bar, exists.

Council debate touched on fiscal impacts: one member voted no on budget grounds; others said the changes implement the clear will of voters and set up procedures and transparency for future requests. The audit committee had recommended the language in March following the ad hoc process.

What happens next: The audit committee and the auditor's office will work on procurement language and any future funding requests; the municipal‑code change is intended to create a predictable, transparent path when independent counsel is needed.