Report 2015-116 Recommendation 10 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 #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 2019
The status of this recommendation has not changed.
- Estimated Completion Date:
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2018
The city's response to this recommendation has not changed.
- Estimated Completion Date:
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement
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.
All Recommendations in 2015-116
Agency responses received are posted verbatim.