Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Loma Linda mayor urges outside financial review after budget allegations; council and budget committee seek specifics and narrower review
Summary
Mayor Duper proposed hiring an outside firm for a detailed financial examination after allegations of misuse; budget committee members and the finance director urged targeted reviews or committee-led checks and the council agreed to continue the item for more specifics.
Mayor Duper proposed that the city hire an outside firm to perform a detailed examination of the city’s financial records to address allegations raised on the dais. He described the review as a deep, independent look that would have complete access to records and produce a written opinion that could confirm or refute concerns.
"Forensic meaning that, this entity would have complete access to everything, to ask questions, to do deep dive, to really get into every aspect of our budget and our spending," Mayor Duper said during the discussion. He said he wanted a level of review beyond the city’s annual audit so the council could be confident about spending and internal controls.
Members of the budget committee and the finance director pushed back on scope and terminology. Gary Nelson, a budget committee member, said typical CPA audits focus on internal controls and sampling and that a forensic accountant is the usual choice to examine overtime or other specific alleged misuses of funds. Nelson told the council the budget committee would be willing to perform limited, targeted reviews if specific areas of concern were identified.
The finance director explained that the city’s annual auditors perform sampling and do not examine every transaction, and offered to explore whether the current audit firm could provide additional services. Several council members said they would prefer the budget committee or staff look at defined areas first and asked the member(s) who raised allegations to provide specifics.
Council did not approve a forensic audit at the meeting. Instead, members agreed to continue the item to the next meeting so the budget committee or the member(s) alleging problems could present specific examples or a smaller scope for review. The meeting record shows no formal vote to hire an external forensic accountant; the transcript records direction to return the item with more information.
