Audit committees and accountability in local government: A national survey

International Journal of Public Administration

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 329-362

  West, Jonathan P ^a   Berman, Evan M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Audit committee; Best practices; Ethics; Local government

Indexed keywords

EID: 85050168636     PISSN: 01900692     EISSN: 15324265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/PAD-120019224     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Dluhy, M. J., and Frank, H. A., 1997. Miami: Teetering on the precipice of disaster. Municipal Finance Journal, 18 (1): 1–17.
2. Kearns, K. P., 1995. Accountability and entrepreneurial public management: the case of the Orange County investment fund. Public Budgeting and Finance, 15 (3): 3–21.
3. Cohen, S., and Eimicke, W., 1996. Is public entrepreneurship ethical?. Public Integrity Annual, 1: 3–11.
4. Cohen, S., and Eimicke, W., 1999. Is public entrepreneurship ethical? A second look at theory and practice. Public Integrity, 1 (1): 54–74.
5. Kalbers, L., 1992. Audit committees and internal auditors. Internal Auditors,: 37–44.
6. Sharp, F., and Bull, I., 1992. Information oversight for efficiency and effectiveness in local Government. Government Accounting Journal,: 59–65.
7. Montondon, L., 1995. Accountability in municipalities: the use of internal auditors and audit committees. American Review of Public Administration, 25 (1): 59–61.
8. Montondon, L., 1995. Accountability in municipalities: the use of internal auditors and audit committees. American Review of Public Administration, 25 (1): 59–61.
9. Nix, H. M., and Nix, D., 1996. The audit oversight function in municipalities of greater than 100,000 population. Government Accountants Journal, 45 (3): 32–38.
10. Jonas, G. J., and Young, S. J., 1999. Improving audit committee effectiveness. Research in Accounting Regulation, 13: 231–240.
11. Braiotta, L., 1994. The Audit Committee Handbook NY: John Wiley & Sons.
12. Babachicos, P., Kyle, D., McKenzie, K., and Palmquist, G., 1996. Why performance audits preceding scandals were ignored. Government Accountants Journal, 44 (Spring): 13–18.
13. Specifically, financial accountability involves different types of accountability that have been identified by others. Fourtypes of accountability discussed in this literature are of concern here: legal, hierarchical, external, and professional
14. Romzek, B. S., 2000. “ Accountability implications of civil service reform ”. In The Future of Merit Edited by: Pfiffner, J. P., and Brooks, D. A., 146–174. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. Specifically, financial accountability involves different types of accountability that have been identified by others. Fourtypes of accountability discussed in this literature are of concern here: legal, hierarchical, external, and professional
15. Romzek, B. S., and Dubnick, M. J., 1998. “ Accountability ”. In Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration Edited by: Shafritz, J., 6–11. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
16. Romzek, B. S., and Dubnick, M. J., 1994. “ Issues in accountability in flexible personnel systems ”. In New Paradigms for Government Edited by: Ingraham, P. W., and Romzek, B. S., 263–294. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17. Kearns, K. P., 1998. Institutional accountability in higher education: a strategic approach. Public Productivity & Manag. Rev., 22 (2): 141–155.
18. Kearns, K. P., 1994. The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: an analytic framework. Public Admin. Rev., 54 (2): 185–192.
19. Uhr, J., 1999. Institutions of integrity. Public Integrity,: 94–106.
20. Halachmi, A., and Montgomery, V. L., 2000. Best value and accountability: issues and observations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66: 393–414.
21. Gormley, W. T., 1999. “ Accountability battles in state administration ”. In Current Issues in Public Administration Edited by: Lane, F. S., 123–140. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
22. Finer, H., 1941. Administrative responsibility and democratic government. Public Admin. Rev., 1 (Summer): 335–350.
23. Bruce, W. M., 1998. “ Administrative morality ”. In The International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration Edited by: Shafritz, J. M., 55–58. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
24. Friedrich, C. I., 1940. “ Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility ”. In Public Policy Edited by: Friedrich, C. J., and Mason, E. S., 3–24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Light, P. C., 2000. Making Nonprofits Work Washington, DC: Brookings. Legal accountability refers to oversight and monitoring to ensure tasks are carried out in accordance with constitutional principles, laws or standards. Hierarchical accountability is achieved by close supervision to ensure compliance with directives. External accountability involves the exercise of administrative discretion to ensure key external stakeholders are satisfied. Professional accountability refers to oversight and monitoring consistent with the best professional norms and practices
26. The Single Audit Act, P.L. 98-502, 98 Stat. 2327, 1984; Single Audit Act Amendments, P.L. 104-156, 110 Stat. 1396, 1996 requires that local governments follow the GAO audit standards (which include and amplify GAAS standards). This Act helps to eliminate audit duplication and further requires city governments that receive federal assistance of $300,000 or more in any fiscal year to conduct a single audit examining the way federal funds are handled. See Government Accounting and Auditing Committee, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Audit of State and Local Governmental Unit; AICPA, NY, 1998.
27. Miller, G. J., and Van Daniker, R. P., 1995. Impact of the single audit act on the financial management of state and local governments. Government Accountants Journal, 44 (Spring): 55–63. GAGAS reporting standards specify the need for auditors to communicate with audit committees and other responsible parties
28. Montondon, L., 1995. Accountability in municipalities: the use of internal auditors and audit committees. Am. Rev. Public Adm., 25 (1): 59–61.
29. Montondon, L., and Meixner, N., 1992. Environmental characteristics: the effect on municipal auditor objectivity. Internal Accounting,: 64–71.
30. Braiotta, L., 1994. The Audit Committee Handbook NY: John Wiley & Sons.
31. Mikesell, J. L., 1986. Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
32. Shoulders, F., 1999. Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting: Theory and Practice Vol. chap. 20, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon Schuster.
33. 1996. “ International City/County Management Association ”. In Management Policies in Local Government Washington, DC: ICMA.
34. Audits can be further classified into four categories: financial and compliance, economy and efficiency, program results, and performance audits. As the title implies, financial and compliance audits usually focus on detecting fraud, monitoring spending, receipts and records, and other forms of financial control. They are often performed by outside accounting firms or government bodies. Economy and efficiency audits examine the management practices of a municipality with an eye to identifying cost inefficiencies or mismanagement and tracking utilization and control of resources. Program results audits are primarily concerned with whether cities are achieving their programmatic objectives and with determining whether lower cost alternatives are considered to achieve results. Performance audits are the broadest of all. They examine all facets of a city's operations incorporating elements of the financial, efficiency and program results audits
35. Mikesell, J. L., 1986. Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
36. Shoulders, F., 1999. Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting: Theory and Practice Vol. chap. 20, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon Schuster.
37. 1996. Management Policies in Local Government Washington, DC: ICMA. International City/County Management Association
38. Lee, R. D., Jr. and Johnson, R. W., 1998. Public Budgeting Systems 337–342. NY: Aspen Publishers.
39. Bailey, L. P., 2000. Miller Governmental GAAP Guide Chicago, IL: Harcourt Professional Publishing.
40. Audits of State and Local Governmental Units New York: AICPA. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. issued periodically multiple issues. Audit committees are likely to be interested and involved in one way or another with all four types of audits
41. Leftwich, C. K., 1999. Making Government Responsible: Ethical Oversight of Financial Reporting University of Miami. (Unpublished Senior Honors Thesis)
42. Elder, R. J., Kattelus, S. C., and Ward, D. D., 1995. A comparison of finance officer and auditor assessments of municipal internal control. Public Budgeting and Financial Management, 7: 336–350.
43. Deis, D., and Giroux, G., 1992. Determinants of audit quality in the public sector. The Accounting Review, 67: 462–479.
44. 1994. GAO Government Auditing Standards, The 1994 Revision (The Yellow Book) 38Washington, DC: GAO. U.S. Government Accounting Office
45. 1994. GAO Government Auditing Standards, The 1994 Revision (The Yellow Book) Washington, DC: GAO. U.S. Government Accounting Office
46. Rubin, M. A., 1992. Municipal selection of a state or external auditor for financial statement audits. J. Account. Public Pol., 11: 155–178.
47. Roberts, R. W., Glezen, G. W., and Jones, T. W., 1990. Determinants of auditor change in the public sector. J. Accounting Res., 28 (Spring): 220–228.
48. Walker, P. L., Casterella, J. R., and Moet, L. K., 1998. An investigation of audit failures in new audit engagements. Research in Accounting Regulation, 12: 61–75.
49. Banker, R. D., Cooper, W. W., and Potter, G., 1992. A perspective on research in Governmental accounting. The Accounting Review, 67 (July): 496–510.
50. Brown, R. E., 1999. The impact of scholarly research on the regulation of governmental accounting and auditing. Research in Accounting Regulation, 13: 97–110.
51. Freeman, R. A., 1990. Public sector research in the universities: significant research effects. Government Accountants Journal, 38 (Winter): 43–49.
52. Jonas, G. J., and Young, S. J., 1999. Improving audit committee effectiveness. Research in Accounting Regulation, 13: 231–240.
53. Jonas, G. J., and Young, S. J., 1999. Improving audit committee effectiveness. Research in Accounting Regulation, 13: 231–240.
54. Recommended Practices—Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting GFOA. Downloaded on 1/18/01.http://www.gfoa.org/gfoa2000/gfoarp/gfoarpl.htm
55. Deis, D., and Giroux, G., 1992. Determinants of audit quality in the public sector. The Accounting Review, 67: 462–479.
56. Kleinman, G., Palmon, D., and Anandarajan, A., 1998. Auditor independence: a synthesis of theory and independent research. Research in Accounting Regulation, 12: 3–42.
57. Sharp, F., and Bull, I., 1992. Information oversight for efficiency and effectiveness in local government. Government Accounting Journal,: 59–65.
58. 1991. The Audit Committee in the Public Sector Position Paper Altamonte Springs, FL: IIA. Institute of Internal Auditors
59. Montondon, L., 1995. Accountability in municipalities: the use of internal auditors and audit committees. Am. Rev. Public Adm., 25 (1): 59–61.
60. Recommended Practices—Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting GFOA. Downloaded on 1/18/01.http://www.gfoa.org/gfoa2000/gfoarp/gfoarpl.htm
61. 1993. Improving Audit Committee Performance: What Works Best Altamonte Springs, FL: Institute of Auditors. Price Waterhouse
62. Bacon, J., 1988. The Audit Committee: A Broader Mandate New York: The Conference Board. Report No. 914
63. Jonas, G. J., and Young, S. J., 1999. Improving audit committee effectiveness. Research in Accounting Regulation, 13: 231–240.
64. Recommended Practices—Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting GFOA. Downloaded on 1/18/01.http://www.gfoa.org/gfoa2000/gfoarp/gfoarpl.htm
65. See footnote 7 for definitions