Report 2015-116 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2015-116: City of Irvine: Poor Governance of the $1.7 Million Review of the Orange County Great Park Needlessly Compromised the Review's Credibility (Release Date: August 2016)

Recommendation #1 To: Irvine, City of

To ensure that local government audits are conducted with independence and rigor, beginning immediately Irvine should incorporate into its RFPs and contracts the requirement that consultants follow appropriate, sufficient audit standards when performing audit services.

60-Day Agency Response

Irvine has implemented Recommendation No. 1. When applicable, future requests for proposals ("RFPs") for auditing and consulting services will expressly identify the specific standard that Irvine intends for the contractor to apply. Further, Irvine will require contractors to perform work in accordance with GAGAS when appropriate. To date, Irvine has included this requirement in the RFP for the Auditing Services contract, issued February 2016, which requires compliance with GAGAS standards for financial audits.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

We acknowledge that Irvine has included language related to audit standards in a past RFP for audit services; however, as we note in the section of the report beginning on page 18, Irvine did not specify in its RFP for services related to the Great Park review that the firms associated with the review needed to follow standards and procedures that would result in the thorough, independent evaluation of Great Park contracts that the city council members had described to the public.

While we consider this recommendation fully implemented, we caution Irvine to continue to follow this practice in all cases where the city desires an audit.


Recommendation #2 To: Irvine, City of

To improve fiscal accountability and to ensure that audits are performed to appropriate standards, Irvine should adopt an internal audit function by December 2017.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2017

The status of the recommendations the City of Irvine has indicated it will not implement has not changed.

  • Estimated Completion Date:

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

We remain disappointed that Irvine has chosen not to adopt an internal audit function, but acknowledge that the city remains open to reconsidering such a function in the future. With regard to the Great Park review itself, as we note on pages 22-23 of the audit report, an internal auditor could have ensured that audits performed by an external auditor had an appropriate scope and that contracts were subject to rigorous monitoring. Such activities could have eliminated the expressed concerns of the city manager and one subcommittee member about the appearance of a conflict of interest that prevented staff from helping to manage the park review and simultaneously functioning as subjects of that same review.


1-Year Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response

  • Response Date: August 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

We remain disappointed that Irvine has chosen not to adopt an internal audit function, but acknowledge that the city remains open to reconsidering such a function in the future. With regard to the Great Park review itself, as we note on pages 22-23 of the audit report, an internal auditor could have ensured that audits performed by an external auditor had an appropriate scope and that contracts were subject to rigorous monitoring. Such activities could have eliminated the expressed concerns of the city manager and one subcommittee member about the appearance of a conflict of interest that prevented staff from helping to manage the park review and simultaneously functioning as subjects of that same review.


6-Month Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response.

  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We remain disappointed that Irvine has chosen not to adopt an internal audit function, but acknowledge that the city remains open to reconsidering such a function in the future. With regard to the Great Park review itself, as we note on pages 22-23 of the audit report, an internal auditor could have ensured that audits performed by an external auditor had an appropriate scope and that contracts were subject to rigorous monitoring. Such activities could have eliminated the expressed concerns of the city manager and one subcommittee member about the appearance of a conflict of interest that prevented staff from helping to manage the park review and simultaneously functioning as subjects of that same review.


60-Day Agency Response

As noted in the City's June 28, 2016 response to the California State Auditor, it is not apparent that an internal auditor would have performed unfilled functions or added demonstrable value to the Great Park Review. The Great Park Review was unique and the city is unlikely to conduct a review of that scope and magnitude with regularity. Irvine does not agree that the atypical experiences and challenges posed by the Great Park Review form a sufficient basis to create an on-going expenditure of public resources on permanent internal audit function. Although the City is not opposed to reconsidering in the future whether an internal audit function would be beneficial, the City currently prefers the flexibility to retain audit/review services on an as-needed basis.

Further, In the case of the Great Park Review, external professionals fulfilled the functions that an internal audit control may have performed. For example, the Great Park Review was conducted by a public accounting firm and a law firm, in accordance with agreed-upon standards and procedures that had been developed with the guidance and advice of external public accountants and auditors. After the City received this outside professional input, the City Council approved the RFP through which HSNO was retained.

  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We are disappointed that Irvine has chosen not to adopt an internal audit function, but acknowledge that the city remains open to reconsidering such a function in the future. With regard to the Great Park review itself, as we note on pages 22-23 of the audit report, an internal auditor could have ensured that audits performed by an external auditor had an appropriate scope and that contracts were subject to rigorous monitoring. Such activities could have eliminated the expressed concerns of the city manager and one subcommittee member about the appearance of a conflict of interest that prevented staff from helping to manage the park review and simultaneously functioning as subjects of that same review.


Recommendation #3 To: Irvine, City of

To make certain that it conducts its competitive bidding process in a more transparent and fair manner, Irvine should, by December 2016, require city staff to include in every RFP the specified methodology for selecting contractors and not to deviate from it without adequate notice to potential bidders. Further, Irvine should include this requirement in its contracting manual.

6-Month Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Irvine has included a statement in its Requests for Proposals (RFP) Checklist that it revised on October 13, 2016, which was after it's 60-day response, stating that "When rating the firms, [that submit bids] the various selection criteria weightings stated in the RFP document must not be adjusted."


60-Day Agency Response

Irvine has already, and will continue to, implement Recommendation No. 3.

Although the City does not concede that the robust policies and procedures that were in place during the relevant timeframe were inadequate, the City has enhanced its procurement procedures and supporting documents. Specifically, the City implemented the steps noted in Recommendation No. 3 and related item in Recommendation No. 4. For example, in September 2014, the City added detailed instructions regarding RFP selection criteria to the City's RFP checklist. The RFP checklist is referenced in the Purchasing and Contracts Policies & Procedures. These enhancements include providing the recommended weight to be given to preferred selection criteria. To ensure that the City's methodology and criteria are followed, the City is requiring staff members responsible for City purchasing to collaborate with project managers during the preparation of each and every RFP and to provide training, guidance, and oversight during the procurement process. Note: Listed as Recommendation 3(a) in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We disagree that Irvine has fully implemented this recommendation. Irvine should update its contracting manual to include a requirement that it will notify bidders if the city desires to deviate from the selection criteria outlined in the RFP. We acknowledge on page 27 of the report that Irvine updated its policies in September 2014. Those updated policies include a requirement that Irvine outline the selection criteria in its RFPs. However, although a checklist Irvine uses has a process for amending RFPs and informing potential bidders, neither the policies nor the checklist indicate whether or when the city may change the selection criteria, especially once proposal review has begun, as we reported happened in the case of the Great Park review.

  • Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation

Recommendation #4 To: Irvine, City of

To make certain that it conducts its competitive bidding process in a more transparent and fair manner, Irvine should examine and update its preferred selection criteria listed in its contracting manual and abide by these criteria when creating RFPs and evaluating bidders by December 2016.

60-Day Agency Response

Irvine has already, and will continue to, implement Recommendation No. 4.

Although the City does not concede that the robust policies and procedures that were in place during the relevant timeframe were inadequate, the City has enhanced its procurement procedures and supporting documents. Specifically, the City implemented the steps noted in Recommendation No. 4 and the related Recommendation No. 3. For example, in September 2014, the City added detailed instructions regarding RFP selection criteria to the city's RFP checklist. These enhancements include providing the recommended weight to be given to preferred selection criteria. To ensure that the City's methodology and criteria are followed, the City is requiring staff members responsible for City purchasing to collaborate with project managers during the preparation of each and every RFP and to provide training, guidance, and oversight during the procurement process. Note: Listed as Recommendation 3(b) in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

On page 27 of the audit report we acknowledged changes Irvine made to its contracting manual related to the proposal review and selection process. While we agree that this recommendation is fully implemented, we caution Irvine to continue to follow this revised criteria to ensure its future competitive bidding processes are transparent and fair and to examine and update its criteria as appropriate.


Recommendation #5 To: Irvine, City of

To make certain that it conducts its competitive bidding process in a more transparent and fair manner, Irvine should, by December 2016, further clarify the manner in which an interview may factor into the decision regarding awarding a contract. Specifically, Irvine should include in its procedures whether an interview may change scores from an earlier phase of the proposal review process. Additionally, Irvine should include in the published RFP the details of how it will use interviews in its review process.

6-Month Agency Response

Although the City does not concede that the robust policies and procedures that were in place during the relevant timeframe were inadequate, the City has enhanced its procurement procedures and supporting documents. Recommendation 5 was implemented effective October 13, 2016, with a revised "Request for Proposals (RFP) Checklist." The RFP Checklist adds RFP provisions regarding how interviews will be used in the RFP process and clarifying that scoring from other phases of the RFP review process will not change if an interview is added. Specifically, on page 2, "RFPs that may include an interview process must state, 'The City reserves the right to conduct interviews with the highest rated firm or firms. In the event the City does perform an interview process, the additive weighting shall be __%.' When rating the firms, the various selection criteria weightings stated in the RFP document must not be adjusted." Note: Listed as Recommendation 3(c) in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Completion Date: October 2016
  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented


60-Day Agency Response

Although the City does not concede that the robust policies and procedures that were in place during the relevant timeframe were inadequate, the City has enhanced its procurement procedures and supporting documents. To further implement Recommendation No. 5, the City will clarify its uniform procedures for addressing interviews in RFPs so that bidders will better understand that they may be evaluated based on their performance during interviews. Recommendation 5 will be implemented by December 2016. Note: Listed as Recommendation 3(c) in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Estimated Completion Date: December 2016
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #6 To: Irvine, City of

To make certain that Irvine complies with the intent of competitive bidding for professional services, beginning immediately it should not include provisions in its RFPs for potential future services that are above and beyond the desired scope of work.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2017

The status of the recommendations the City of Irvine has indicated it will not implement has not changed.

  • Estimated Completion Date:

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: We are encouraged that Irvine will evaluate whether future service provisions should be included in RFPs on a case-by-case basis but are disappointed that it is choosing not to adopt our recommendation. In its response, the city repeats concerns it expressed in its response to our audit, on pages 56 and 57 of the audit report. We responded to those concerns on page 67 of the report. We stated that we remain concerned that the park review RFP was structured in such a way as to encourage the winning bidder to develop opportunities for future work. We acknowledged on page 28 of the audit report that when a contractor is already familiar with the work it will need to accomplish, a no-bid contract may be more efficient. Nevertheless, we noted that most of the 29 recommendations in the January 2014 report by Irvine's consultant were recommendations for additional work. The structure of Irvine's RFP encouraged such a result by stating that the consultant might need to perform procedures of a more forensic nature depending on the findings in the consultant's final report.


1-Year Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response

  • Response Date: August 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: We are encouraged that Irvine will evaluate whether future service provisions should be included in RFPs on a case-by-case basis but are disappointed that it is choosing not to adopt our recommendation. In its response, the city repeats concerns it expressed in its response to our audit, on pages 56 and 57 of the audit report. We responded to those concerns on page 67 of the report. We stated that we remain concerned that the park review RFP was structured in such a way as to encourage the winning bidder to develop opportunities for future work. We acknowledged on page 28 of the audit report that when a contractor is already familiar with the work it will need to accomplish, a no-bid contract may be more efficient. Nevertheless, we noted that most of the 29 recommendations in the January 2014 report by Irvine's consultant were recommendations for additional work. The structure of Irvine's RFP encouraged such a result by stating that the consultant might need to perform procedures of a more forensic nature depending on the findings in the consultant's final report.


6-Month Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response.

  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: We are encouraged that Irvine will evaluate whether future service provisions should be included in RFPs on a case-by-case basis but are disappointed that it is choosing not to adopt our recommendation. In its response, the city repeats concerns it expressed in its response to our audit, on pages 56 and 57 of the audit report. We responded to those concerns on page 67 of the report. We stated that we remain concerned that the park review RFP was structured in such a way as to encourage the winning bidder to develop opportunities for future work. We acknowledged on page 28 of the audit report that when a contractor is already familiar with the work it will need to accomplish, a no-bid contract may be more efficient. Nevertheless, we noted that most of the 29 recommendations in the January 2014 report by Irvine's consultant were recommendations for additional work. The structure of Irvine's RFP encouraged such a result by stating that the consultant might need to perform procedures of a more forensic nature depending on the findings in the consultant's final report.


60-Day Agency Response

Irvine is not inclined to adopt Recommendation No. 6. The City will, however, continue evaluating whether future service provisions should be included in RFPs on a case-by-case basis.

As noted in the City's June 28, 2016 response to the California State Auditor, the City disagrees with the CSA's conclusion that the RFP impacted the likelihood that HSNO would be selected for the additional work and stands by its determination that the City Council's assessment of HSNO's performance was transparent.

The City's RFP currently has advantages that would no longer exist if Recommendation No. 6 were implemented, including opportunities to negotiate more competitive rates in the first instance and prevent rate increases, and to eliminate time and expenses associated with rebidding processes. In other words, adherence to Recommendation No. 6 could eliminate efficiencies by giving leverage to a repeat bidder. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 4 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We are encouraged that Irvine will evaluate whether future service provisions should be included in RFPs on a case-by-case basis but are disappointed that it is choosing not to adopt our recommendation. In its response, the city repeats concerns it expressed in its response to our audit, on pages 56 and 57 of the audit report. We responded to those concerns on page 67 of the report. We stated that we remain concerned that the park review RFP was structured in such a way as to encourage the winning bidder to develop opportunities for future work. We acknowledged on page 28 of the audit report that when a contractor is already familiar with the work it will need to accomplish, a no-bid contract may be more efficient. Nevertheless, we noted that most of the 29 recommendations in the January 2014 report by Irvine's consultant were recommendations for additional work. The structure of Irvine's RFP encouraged such a result by stating that the consultant might need to perform procedures of a more forensic nature depending on the findings in the consultant's final report.


Recommendation #7 To: Irvine, City of

To prevent contractors from exceeding their scope of work, Irvine should periodically review ongoing contract invoices and compare billed activities to the contractor's scope of work to be certain that these invoices reflect the work Irvine expects the contractor to perform. Irvine should also ensure that it assigns a staff project manager to projects who can sufficiently and appropriately monitor the contractor's work. In the future, if the council decides to limit or modify the existing authority of city officials relating to contract oversight, it should ensure that its resolutions explicitly delineate the limits or modifications to that authority.

60-Day Agency Response

Irvine has, and will continue to review contract invoices and compare billed activities to the contractors' scope of work. When doing so, Irvine will continue to utilize employees who can appropriately monitor the contractors' work. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 5 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

We agree that this recommendation is fully implemented but caution Irvine to continue to follow its practices as it describes in the response. As we note in our report on pages 67-68, there was a lack of clarity regarding who was managing the park review. As stated on pages 32 and 33, the city manager understood he was not to direct one of the consultants and that the park review was exclusively the province of the subcommittee. However, we note on page 33 that the subcommittee members gave us conflicting answers when we asked them whether they were overseeing the park review. One member stated that the subcommittee's function was to oversee the park review while the other explained that the overall direction and work of the park review was determined by the two consultants hired to conduct the review.


Recommendation #8 To: Irvine, City of

To ensure that it receives the services for which it has contracted and to avoid conflicts with its contractors, Irvine should monitor and enforce its contract provisions requiring that work not be performed in advance of the city issuing a signed contract and approved purchase order.

60-Day Agency Response

Irvine has, at all relevant times, monitored and enforced its contract provisions requiring that work nČot be performed in advance of issuing a signed contract and approved purchase order. Irvine will continue to monitor and enforce these provisions. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 6 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Completion Date: June 2016
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

We agree that this recommendation is fully implemented but caution the city to continue to enforce requirements that contractors and consultants not begin work without a signed contract and approved purchase order. We acknowledge in the section of our report beginning on page 33 that Irvine had controls in place to monitor contract provisions that work not be performed in advance of an approved purchase order. For example, we describe a warning issued to one consultant, and we note that Irvine required consultants to submit invoices within 15 days of the end of each month. However, our section describes a situation where such controls were ineffective.


Recommendation #9 To: Irvine, City of

To maintain appropriate, transparent fiscal accountability, Irvine should amend city contracting and purchasing policies by December 2016 to make certain that all of its contracts and contract amendments with a proposed cost exceeding the threshold requiring city council or other approval receive the appropriate approvals, including approval for sole-source contracts. Further, city policies should require appropriate approvals when increases in spending authority are accomplished through a purchase order or other means.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2017

The status of the recommendations the City of Irvine has indicated it will not implement has not changed.

  • Estimated Completion Date:

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: It is unfortunate that Irvine is choosing to ignore this recommendation. We stand by our recommendation that Irvine needs to amend its policies and explain our rationale on page 68 of the audit report where we respond to the city's concerns. On page 68 we state, in part, that Irvine's policies do not explicitly allow for or prohibit using a purchase order to avoid the need for an amendment. In our judgment this creates an opportunity to circumvent city council approval.


1-Year Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response

  • Response Date: August 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response:

It is unfortunate that Irvine is choosing to ignore this recommendation. We stand by our recommendation that Irvine needs to amend its policies and explain our rationale on page 68 of the audit report where we respond to the city's concerns. On page 68 we state, in part, that Irvine's policies do not explicitly allow for or prohibit using a purchase order to avoid the need for an amendment. In our judgment this creates an opportunity to circumvent city council approval


6-Month Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response.

  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

As we stated in our assessment of the city's 60-day response:

It is unfortunate that Irvine is choosing to ignore this recommendation. We stand by our recommendation that Irvine needs to amend its policies and explain our rationale on page 68 of the audit report where we respond to the city's concerns. On page 68 we state, in part, that Irvine's policies do not explicitly allow for or prohibit using a purchase order to avoid the need for an amendment. In our judgment this creates an opportunity to circumvent city council approval.


60-Day Agency Response

Irvine agrees that all city contracts and contract amendments should be approved by the appropriate persons or governing bodies. Irvine also agrees that appropriate approvals should be obtained when increases in spending authority are provided through a purchase order or other means. The City's contract management system blocks the issuance of a purchase order where prior approval was not obtained.

Irvine, however, disagrees that the City's contracting or purchasing policies need to be amended to ensure that the requisite approval is acquired. The CSA's audit findings do not indicate any reason to amend the City's contracting or purchasing policies. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 7 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

It is unfortunate that Irvine is choosing to ignore this recommendation. We stand by our recommendation that Irvine needs to amend its policies and explain our rationale on page 68 of the audit report where we respond to the city's concerns. On page 68 we state, in part, that Irvine's policies do not explicitly allow for or prohibit using a purchase order to avoid the need for an amendment. In our judgment this creates an opportunity to circumvent city council approval.


Recommendation #10 To: Irvine, City of

To provide the public with adequate information regarding the city council's spending decisions, Irvine's city council should, by December 2016, include in its policies a requirement that motions by the council to appropriate revenue to fund a specific contract should name the recipients and proposed use of the funds.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2017

The status of the recommendations the City of Irvine has indicated it will not implement has not changed.

  • Estimated Completion Date:

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we noted in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: Our recommendation does not infringe on the city council's ability to exercise its discretion but insists the council be specific in informing the public how it does so. As we note on page 68 of our audit report, our recommendation is specific to instances where the council appropriates revenue to fund a specific contract. In those instances, ensuring that the public is aware of who is to receive funding and how much they are to receive is reasonable and prudent.


1-Year Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response

  • Response Date: August 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As we noted in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: Our recommendation does not infringe on the city council's ability to exercise its discretion but insists the council be specific in informing the public how it does so. As we note on page 68 of our audit report, our recommendation is specific to instances where the council appropriates revenue to fund a specific contract. In those instances, ensuring that the public is aware of who is to receive funding and how much they are to receive is reasonable and prudent.


6-Month Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response.

  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

As we noted in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: Our recommendation does not infringe on the city council's ability to exercise its discretion but insists the council be specific in informing the public how it does so. As we note on page 68 of our audit report, our recommendation is specific to instances where the council appropriates revenue to fund a specific contract. In those instances, ensuring that the public is aware of who is to receive funding and how much they are to receive is reasonable and prudent.


60-Day Agency Response

As noted in the City's June 28, 2016 response to the California State Auditor, the Report does not identify a violation of law or city policy. Rather, Recommendation No. 10 is based on the CSA's unsubstantiated opinion regarding best practices and fails to address or anticipate the myriad circumstances when the City Council could better serve the community by providing broader authority and wider discretion. As the elected governing body of Irvine, the City Council is best equipped to exercise its discretion when it makes funding allocations, and it is held accountable by its constituents. The City Council sees no reason why it should limit that discretion as a result of the Report. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 8 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

Our recommendation does not infringe on the city council's ability to exercise its discretion but insists the council be specific in informing the public how it does so. As we note on page 68 of our audit report, our recommendation is specific to instances where the council appropriates revenue to fund a specific contract. In those instances, ensuring that the public is aware of who is to receive funding and how much they are to receive is reasonable and prudent.


Recommendation #11 To: Irvine, City of

To foster public confidence in its processes and findings, Irvine should conduct self-initiated investigations, reviews, or audits in an open and transparent manner that ensures independence. Specifically, Irvine should not establish advisory bodies exempt from open meeting laws to oversee these investigations, reviews, or audits. Instead, any required reports from contractors conducting such investigations, reviews, or audits should go to the city council or a standing committee of the city council to be discussed in either open or closed session, as appropriate.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2017

The status of the recommendations the City of Irvine has indicated it will not implement has not changed.

  • Estimated Completion Date:

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

As we note in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: We are disappointed that Irvine has chosen not to implement this recommendation. Our recommendation is not "one size fits all." We do not recommend that Irvine cease using subcommittees. Rather, our recommendation is specific to the use of subcommittees to oversee investigations, reviews, or audits.


1-Year Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response

  • Response Date: August 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

As we note in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: We are disappointed that Irvine has chosen not to implement this recommendation. Our recommendation is not "one size fits all." We do not recommend that Irvine cease using subcommittees. Rather, our recommendation is specific to the use of subcommittees to oversee investigations, reviews, or audits.


6-Month Agency Response

Please see the City's 60-day response.

  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

As we note in our assessment of the city's 60-day response: We are disappointed that Irvine has chosen not to implement this recommendation. Our recommendation is not "one size fits all." We do not recommend that Irvine cease using subcommittees. Rather, our recommendation is specific to the use of subcommittees to oversee investigations, reviews, or audits.


60-Day Agency Response

As noted in the City's June 28, 2016 response to the California State Auditor, under the Brown Act, the City Council retains the right to judiciously appoint ad hoc subcommittees of its membership to give focused attention to a particular matter for a temporary period. The City Council has historically formed subcommittees to allow two councilmembers (who have been appointed by a majority of their colleagues at a public meeting) to examine specific subject matters in detail. In this instance, the City Council unanimously determined that the unique nature of this matter necessitated the appointment of a subcommittee. Implementation of the "one size fits all" recommendation that Irvine refrain from forming advisory bodies that fall within the Brown Act's exemptions to open meeting requirements would be poor policy. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 9 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We are disappointed that Irvine has chosen not to implement this recommendation. Our recommendation is not "one size fits all." We do not recommend that Irvine cease using subcommittees. Rather, our recommendation is specific to the use of subcommittees to oversee investigations, reviews, or audits.


Recommendation #12 To: Irvine, City of

To ensure that Irvine follows best practices related to depositions as outlined in state law, the city council should adopt a policy requiring that Irvine post deposition transcripts for the public after the deponents have had adequate opportunity to correct and sign their depositions.

1-Year Agency Response

A policy regarding posting deposition transcripts for the public was adopted on July 25, 2017. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 10 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Completion Date: July 2017
  • Response Date: August 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented


6-Month Agency Response

A proposed policy regarding posting deposition transcripts for the public will be presented for City Council consideration in March 2017, rather than January. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 10 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Estimated Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending


60-Day Agency Response

A proposed policy regarding posting deposition transcripts for the public will be presented for City Council consideration in January 2017. Note: Listed as Recommendation No. 10 in June 28, 2016 letter.

  • Estimated Completion Date: January 2017
  • Response Date: October 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


All Recommendations in 2015-116

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader