Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 072864
Printable PDF Format Download Adobe Reader  

File Number: 072864 File Type: Resolution Status: In Draft
Version: 0 Reference: Control: Budget and Finance Committee
File Name: BEST PRACTICES REVIEW-OFFICE OF COMMISSION AUDITOR Introduced: 9/26/2007
Requester: NONE Cost: Final Action:
Agenda Date: Agenda Item Number: 11A
Notes: NOTE TO CAO: ITEM FILED IN COMM'R FOLDER Title: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A REVIEW OF THE PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION AUDITOR AND A BEST PRACTICES REVIEW OF THE OFFICE
Indexes: COMMISSION AUDITOR
Sponsors: Audrey M. Edmonson, Prime Sponsor
Sunset Provision: No Effective Date: Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist: None Listed


Legislative History

Acting Body Date Agenda Item Action Sent To Due Date Returned Pass/Fail

County Attorney 11/15/2007 Referred Budget and Finance Committee 12/11/2007

Budget and Finance Committee 11/13/2007 2B Deferred 12/11/2007 P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Jess McCarty read the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. It was moved by Commissioner Gimenez that this proposed resolution be forwarded to the County Commission with a favorable recommendation. This motion was seconded by Chairman Martinez, for discussion. Commissioner Sosa questioned the fiscal impact of this proposal. She expressed concern regarding the following language: “that the role of the Commission Auditor had changed from its original function as a result of the January 26, 2007, Charter amendment,” outlined in the seventh (7th) WHEREAS clause in this proposed resolution. She noted Ordinance 03-2, which created the Office of the Commission Auditor, included the objective to create a budget. She suggested the County Commission review Ordinance 03-2 and evaluate the delivery of the original functions. She expressed concern regarding the Commission using funds for this proposal without an official review process being created. Chairman Martinez noted he thought the functions of the Commission Auditor had changed; and that he understood the intent of this resolution to be an evaluation and report card of the Office of the Commission Auditor. He explained the County Commission had not provided the Commission Auditor with specific guidelines; and that the County Commission could not fairly evaluate the Commission Auditor without those guidelines. Responding to Chairman Martinez’s comments regarding the relationship of the Commission Auditor and the County Commission Chair, Commissioner Sosa recommended the Committee take no action and allow Chairman Barreiro to put forward a recommendation regarding this Office. Commissioner Sorenson spoke in support of Commissioner Sosa’s recommendation to review Ordinance 03-2 and evaluate the Commission Auditor’s delivery of those functions. Following the response by Mr. Charles Anderson, Commission Auditor, Office of the Commission Auditor, to Chairman Martinez’s inquiry concerning his job function, Commissioner Sorenson suggested the County Commission hold a workshop to consider their expectations concerning this Office. Hearing no objection, the Committee considered Agenda Item 2G simultaneously with Agenda Item 2B. Assistant County Attorney McCarty read Agenda Item 2G into the record. Commissioner Souto provided an explanation regarding the intent of Agenda Item 2G. He emphasized the County Commission was responsible to set the County budget. He noted Agenda Item 2G would allow the Commission Auditor to prepare a budget and to work with the Office of Strategic Business Management. He stated he would defer Agenda Item 2G to allow the Commission to hold a workshop. Commissioner Gimenez pointed out he sponsored an ordinance for first reading on the November 6, 2007 County Commission Agenda (Legislative File No. 073189) with the intent to control the budget process. He noted the Home Rule Charter had provisions that the Mayor and County Manager would propose a budget at a time that was late in the budget process; and that the Charter limited the County Commission’s ability to prepare the budget. Commissioner Gimenez explained that his proposed ordinance followed the model of another county that had followed the Strong Mayor government format for 37years. Regarding the issue of evaluating the Commission Auditor, Commissioner Gimenez noted that an evaluation would not be fair at this time; that the Commission needed to clearly delineate what functions the Commission Auditor should perform; and that the Commission Auditor should explain to the Commission how he would perform those functions. In response to Chairman Martinez’s inquiries regarding the Commission Auditor’s access to County revenue streams, Ms. Jennifer Glazer-Moon, Budget Director, Office of Strategic Business Management (OSBM), explained the Commission Auditor kept the record of revenue streams and did not have to go through OSBM to access them. Mr. Anderson clarified that he had access to the funding figures; however, he did not know what assumptions the County Administration made regarding those numbers. He further clarified that the County Manager established a process that the Office of the Commission Auditor could not receive direct answers from the OSBM Budget Director; and that this process severely limited the ability of the Office of the Commission Auditor to analyze the budget. Following Commissioner Gimenez’s comments regarding the Commission Auditor accessing information from the County Administration and reporting to the Commission any disagreements concerning the County Administration’s assumptions, Assistant County Attorney McCarty advised, notwithstanding, the Office of the Commission Auditor was created by an amendment to the Charter, Ordinance 03-2 did not address the issue of access to the administration, and that the Commission Auditor had to access the administration through the Mayor. Discussion ensued between Chairman Martinez and Ms. Ines Beecher, Budget Coordinator, Office of the Commission Auditor, regarding the difficulty of preparing a zero base budget for the Police Department. Hearing no other questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on Agenda Items 2B and 2G. Chairman Martinez asked the Commission Auditor to meet with each commissioner to get their insight into the authority and responsibilities of the Office of the Commission Auditor and how the Commission Auditor’s role should be defined under the Strong Mayor System of Government; including how the office should be structured and the appropriate staffing levels.

County Attorney 9/26/2007 Referred Budget and Finance Committee 11/13/2007

County Attorney 9/26/2007 Assigned Jess M. McCarty 11/2/2007

Legislative Text


TITLE
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A REVIEW OF THE PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION AUDITOR AND A BEST PRACTICES REVIEW OF THE OFFICE

BODY
WHEREAS, Section 9.10 of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter creates and establishes the Office of the Commission Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.10 provides that the Commission Auditor shall be a certified public accountant, and provides that the Board shall, by ordinance, provide for the specific functions and responsibilities of the Commission Auditor which shall include, but not be limited to, independent budgetary, audit, management, revenue forecasting, and fiscal analyses of commission policies, and county services and contracts; and
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2003, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 03-2, which provides for the specific functions and responsibilities of the Commission Auditor, and which empowers the Commission Auditor to review all departmental budgets and to prepare a budget for the County upon the request of the Board; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2007, the Charter was amended to transfer certain powers to the County Mayor from the County Manager and Board; and
WHEREAS, despite these changes, the Board remains the governing board and policy-making body for Miami-Dade County, and continues to have the power to adopt a budget for the County; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2007, the Board adopted Resolution No. 506-07, which directed the Commission Auditor to create and staff a budget section within the Office of the Commission Auditor; and
WHEREAS, during the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2007-08 budget, it became apparent that the role of the Commission Auditor had changed from its original function as a result of the January 26, 2007, Charter amendment; and
WHEREAS, now is an appropriate time to review the function of the Commission Auditor and conduct a best practices review of the Office of the Commission Auditor to see how the Commission Auditor can best facilitate and assist the Board in its governing, policy-making and budgetary functions,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board shall undertake a review of the purposes and functions of the Office of the Commission Auditor, as well as a best practices review of the Office in an effort to determine how the Office can best facilitate and assist the Board in its governing, policymaking and budgetary functions. This "best practices review" shall be conducted by a qualified company within Miami-Dade County's Management Advisory Consulting Services Pool to be paid for from the reserve funds created for the Commissioner Auditor amended into the Budget Ordinances at the second 2007 budget hearing. The review shall include a review of the purposes and functions of the Office of the Commission Auditor when it first was established compared with the functions the office currently performs and whether these purposes and functions are compatible.



Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2014 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site 2014 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.