CORRESPONDENCE - 65A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From: Tim Johnson < Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:30 PM To: eComment; Pulido, Miguel; Solorio, Jose; Villegas, Juan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Reyna, Roman; Penaloza, David; Iglesias, Cecilia Subject: Re: Council Agenda Item 65A (Correction) All ... I just realized that I referenced the incorrect agenda item on this correspondence. The below is in reference to agenda item #65B ... many apologies. I hope that you get this in time for tonight's meeting. Thanks! On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 2:17 PM Tim Johnson <tjohnsoncpa65@gmail.com> wrote: Mayor and Council Members ... With regards to agenda item 55B on tonight's agenda, I believe that the selection process should be rethought. The composition of the Citizen Oversight Committee (COC) is made up of 9 members who are residents of Santa Ana. Each council member appears to be able to appoint one member from their district. Additionally, the mayor has the authority to select 3 members with a preference to those with financial expertise. With all due respect to the mayor, I do not feel that the mayor should have three times the influence on the composition of the COC as compared to the remainder of the council members. The mayor should have one member appointed to this committee just as other members of the council. At most, the mayor may have the ability to recommend an additional 2 members subject to approval by the remaining council. I would suggest that the COC be a 7 member panel with appointment by each council member a resident from their district and the mayor appoint one member from the city at large. If the desire is truly to have a 9 member panel, the remaining two members may be recommended by the mayor but then approved by a majority of the remaining council (4 out of the remaining 6) with such candidates having financial or governmental expertise as a preferential criteria. In fact, I believe that due to the nature of this committee that each council member should be giving preference to those with either government or finance/accounting/business experience whenever possible. I also believe that the COC should have included in their duties not only a review of the revenue derived from Measure X (included as item 1 e already in the Recommended By -Laws) but also a review of the additional expenditures associated with the Measure X revenue for conformity, with the original ballot language. I also believe that it appears that the city staff may be suggesting that by having a CPA firm perform an annual financial audit of the city (which currently ocurrs) that this is relieving the city of its obligation to require "annual audits" per the ballot language. I do not believe that this was the inention of including the "annual audit" language in the ballot measure language but instead it was meant to provide an assessment of where the additional Measure X sales tax revenue was being spent. By indicating that the current financial statement audit includes an audit of the new revenue, it appears to be suggesting that is all that is required instead of auditing, and providing feedback, of the use of funds. I suggest that you consider the above changes to this item prior to voting on it tonight and make appropriate changes for the betterment of the city and the COC. Thank you all for your service to our city. Tim Johnson, CPA 0