AG Statement on HB 399
The Auditor General’s Office testified in committee on Thursday stating the below items which greatly helped our cause.
Senator Ronda R. Storms,
To expedite responses to your questions on HB 399, I am responding by email. The following are responses to your questions provided to me today concerning House Bill 399:
Question 1 - Has the Florida Auditor General's Office taken a verbal or written position on this bill? If so, please provide that to my office as soon as possible.
Response: No, we have not taken either a verbal or written position on this bill. Below is the correspondence we have had with Representative Grant and legislative staff regarding HB 399. Auditor General Staff members also attended a meeting with Representative Grant, at which representatives of the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers and Florida Association of Counties staff attended.
Question 2 - Does line 36-38 of House Bill 399 reflect the definition of post-audit functions?
Response: In our opinion, lines 36-38 provide authority to the Clerk to perform functions similar to those performed by post-auditors. However, audits performed by the Clerk would not replace the annual financial audit required pursuant to Section 218.39, Florida Statutes.
Question 3 - If so, is it unusual to grant the same entity, in this case the Clerk of the Circuit Court, both pre and post audit authority?
Response: Yes, it has been unusual in local government finance for an entity or officer to have both pre- and post-audit authority.
Question 4 - By amending section 2, are the Clerk of the Circuit Courts granted additional authority over the boards of county commissioners and constitutional officers?
Response: The language in section 2 grants the Clerk authority to perform post-audit type functions relating to the boards of county commissioners and constitutional officers. It is our opinion that the law does not currently provide specific authority to the Clerk to perform reviews and tests to determine the adequacy of internal controls and compliance with contracts, applicable laws, and rules. However, this issue is the subject of litigation ( see Brock v. Collier order attached), which we understand is under appeal. We are also attaching a copy of Alachua v. Powers, 351 So.2d 32 (1977), referred to in the order and below.
Marilyn Rosetti and Mike Gomez of my staff will be in attendance at the Community Affairs Committee meeting tomorrow. They are the Audit Manager and Audit Supervisor, respectively, over local government reviews and special audits.
Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
David W. Martin
Auditor General