Memorandum
City of Lawrence
City Auditor
|
TO: |
Dave Corliss, City Manager
|
|
FROM: |
Michael Eglinski, City Auditor
|
|
CC: |
Cynthia Wagner, Assistant City Manager Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager Casey Toomay, Budget Manager
|
|
DATE: |
April 27, 2010
|
|
RE: |
City Auditor’s Peer Review 2011
|
I have included a “program improvement decision package” for a peer review for the City Auditor in 2011. A peer review is essentially an “audit of the auditor.” The request is for $3,500.
Government Auditing Standards require an external peer review at least once every three years. A review is due in May 2011. The objective of a peer review is to determine whether an audit organization’s internal quality control system is in place and operating effectively. Also a peer review provides assurance that established policies and procedures and applicable auditing standards are being followed. The City Code requires that the City Auditor follow auditing standards.
During a peer review, auditors from another jurisdiction review the audit policies and procedures and work completed during the review period. The team conducts a site visit and prepares a written report. The report is published on the city’s web page. The peer review team typically includes a member and a leader. Team members have had peer review training. An experienced review coordinator provides additional input but does not visit the site.
The peer review would be conducted through the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA) peer review program. ALGA established the program in 1991.
The cost of the peer review includes travel, lodging, and out of pocket expenses for the peer review team. While the city would not pay any salary costs for the review coordinator or team, the City would agree to send the City Auditor to perform a review of another organization in the future.
I estimated the expenditure as $3500 based on a two person peer review team. I used GSA per diem rates and estimated travel costs of a flight and additional transportation. I included a contingency of about $500. I am hopeful that the expenditures would be lower. ALGA peer reviews have averaged just over $3,000 in recent years.
If a peer review were not funded, I would seek an extension of the 3-year requirement. Government Auditing Standards allow for short extensions. After the extension audit work would have to disclose the lack of compliance with Government Auditing Standards. Perhaps more significantly, the benefits of a review – such as recommendations to strengthen policies, procedures, and practices – would be absent.
Additional information on the ALGA peer review program is available at: