Good afternoon everyone. We Good afternoon everyone. We would call this audit selection committee meeting uh to order. At this time we will have a roll call. >> Mr. Alexander >> present.
>> Mr. Sheffield >> present. >> Linda Myers. >> Mr. Dolan. >> Commissioner Campbell >> present. Let the record reflect that we do have a quorum. We will move forth with public comment. Speakers are limited to three minutes. No action is
to be taken on any items. Do we have anyone here for public comment? Seeing none and hearing none, we will move forward to reports discuss comments received from O the audit selection committee members.
Miss Pierre >> Oh, I'm sorry. May I have a motion for approval of minutes? >> Motion to approve minutes. >> Second. >> Second. >> We have a motion and it's been properly second. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Any opposed to do so by saying nay. Motion passes and we will move forward to the reports. Good afternoon everybody. So everyone received the comments from
Mr. Dolan. Although he's not here, we do have his comments. And before I move forward to make any changes on the RFP, I would like um input um as far as if it's okay to make the approve uh changes based on
his suggestions. Um so we'll start at the top page five. Um, he mentioned >> I do believe that most of his wereas was Was it more so grammatical or from what I read?
>> I guess I mean you could all you could >> No, no, no. I'm just asking for the pleasure of the committee >> because it's different different things. Some of it has to do with grammar or a missing word or something. >> Okay, let's we can roll through it. I
was just trying to progress. >> Okay, so the first um item listed here is on page five. Oh, so he wants to add the list of all the funds on page five. Are you all in agreement with that? that the I emailed
the list of the comprehensive list of government, enterprise, and special funds. And so he wants that list added on page five. >> To where? >> Um, >> sorry to where?
>> To page five. He just wrote page five, section four, >> right? Okay. So five of 24 of the proposal. So he wants it to go up under item section B or >> under description of description of the
government. So I guess we would add um >> so it'll be a D that's added >> right >> with all >> and I'm trying to find >> right >> is uh I don't see them on here. >> Madame Clerk, it appears that Linda Myers has attended virtually.
>> I just noted. Thank you. >> And we'll let the record reflect. Thank you. Um, attorney West, >> does everyone have the email from Mr. Dolan? >> I'm looking it up. I remember his email. >> I can go make a copy. >> Go make a copy.
Okay, >> keep going. >> It's kind of hard to keep going if we don't have the document in front of us. >> Can we temporarily move to item B while she makes a copy? Are you all friendly with moving or what? We would like to state the course.
>> I don't have redeem your time by moving to the next one and then coming back to this. >> That's fine with me. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Would it be possible for everyone who's speaking to speak closer to the microphone so I can follow the logic? >> Thank you so much. Just when you're
speaking. Thank you so much. That's all right. >> Yes, ma'am. And if we speak low, if we don't speak loud enough, just let us know as you have done so >> so that we can make sure that we um try to keep that in mind. Thank you. >> Number two, >> do we have copies of that? I did see it
come across and I did look at it, but I did not bring mine because I thought I saw the email asking that it would be with this package. Okay, here we go. Okay. Okay. Um, >> uh, I thought B was
this bridge. Okay, that's sorry. Thank you. Thank you. >> So, Mr. Mr. Sheffield took his time to prepare this framework and I want to thank you for taking the time to prepare it and bringing your expertise to the table. So I'll give give it give you the
floor. >> My pleasure. >> Okay. So are we reviewing the this document here at this point or now that we have the copy? >> No, let's we should be reviewing the comments. >> Oh, reviewing the comments. Okay, we can
go back to the comments. Um, so I gave you my copy. Did you give it back to me? The copy of the comments. >> Okay. So, page five, that entire comprehensive list that was provided via email is what he wants to add. And add a
letter D >> so that we are efficient and effective. I want to bring uh Miss Meyers up to speed. Miss Meyers, at this currently time at this current time, we are discussing uh comments that was received um by members of this
committee and right now we are going over the email that was uh from Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. >> And we are on the first request or uh which is page five and I'll let Miss
Pierre pick up back there. >> I have the copy of those comments. Yes. Thank you. >> Perfect. >> Okay, great. So the first comment is to add the comprehensive list of funds to page five um section four the
description of government. We just add a letter D and we'll call it comprehensive list of funds. >> All right, that is the first request. Are we friendly to that or >> Yes.
>> Yes, I am. My thought is instead of adding another section, would it fit more appropriately in section B, >> first paragraph? >> Because it seems like that outlines the funds, but doesn't give the specifics
and I read his comment as to specifically listing those funds instead of just saying they're free. Right. Does that make sense to everyone? >> I'm understanding that's what I've initially said. I'm not >> Yeah, that's what I I think he intended. Uh I I I I agree.
>> Can I How How long is the >> is the list? >> Just if you already No, we don't have a copy of it. This So then this is the list of the different funds. This is what he's asking to to be added to that because
the only thing that I thought of >> um should we add it as an exhibit if it changes in the future or just No, this is short enough to include in the body >> I think. >> Okay. >> And you're talking about he's talking about just the >> the fun name. That's right.
>> Not opposed. Not not the That's good with me. >> So I would make the recommendation that it goes up under the section B. >> Okay. >> The entire table that's there. >> Yes. Not not the entire table. >> Just the the listing name of the fund name. >> Okay. Name only. Okay.
>> Yes. >> Well, which one? >> Got it. Okay. So, the second >> I'll look at it. Yeah. Okay. I'll look at it. Okay. >> Can you mute mute the >> probably miss background?
>> Okay. >> Okay. If hopefully if she says something Uh, so make a comment. >> You might just want to let her know we have >> She's on camera. Can we bring her to where she can be seen? >> Her camera is on.
>> She must have it blacked out. >> You have her on mute right now. >> Number two. >> Okay. >> Page six. >> Right. Page six has the he's saying that the proposed schedule
is out of order and missing info. Let me go. So we based on the last um meeting that August 30th I changed to December. are did we make any of the other changes
he recommended >> to that section >> because I think he was he was saying that it just didn't flow as well. So you have a March then April then May about halfway through and then it at the beginning it's October, September,
December, September, September. You see what I'm saying? We're just trying to I think he was trying to articulate that it could flow better. >> Okay. So the fieldwork in reality they come here in um March.
So I'm going to change September um during September where it says fieldwork to March and end of and fieldwork complete. I think that's that is the intera >> when or when would be a good time.
>> So I'm sorry Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Miss >> to ask the question. I see what we're talking about. Is the October through December on page six, is that 2026, but the March through May, is that 2027?
Is that why they're set done like that? Um so the because this proposal is for multiple years we don't put the year there but we just want to provide the auditing companies with a a calendar a
time frame of when we would like to start begin the audit. >> Well then let me rephrase that. Is the October through September on page six relating to something that occurs after the March through May
or is that the order of events and if so that in other words is that March 15th is that after that December 30th >> right >> okay that's what I thought >> right it's a cross of two different years so it's >> so flow it is flowing correctly it's
just that it looks odd because it is two years. >> So the September 30th and then December 30th and then September is the next year. Is that what I'm hearing? >> March is the next year. >> Well,
>> so we go October as I'm following along. October, September, December, September if I'm following the same area. So where >> September is is incorrect. >> Correct. I need >> chairman can could we um just go ahead
and just walk through it and we'll we'll see it >> uh and we can mark the the changes there. So the the October is really the the beginning uh where the auditors are coming in for their entrance conferences and meetings
uh with uh city staff conducting their interim procedures as listed there on the on the right. uh September 30th. um which I thought would would end up being before the by the by October or do
they usually come uh sometime before >> uh the September 30th >> and so that's why you have the by October because it could be before >> uh then okay and then September because it looks a little strange when September comes after okay October in this but I
see what you're saying there so September the uh the fiscal year end that's that's the date of that um and uh by October they would have come and it could have come in September is
what you're saying by the by October so um I would have listed the September 1st but anyway it doesn't so then by December then we're we're saying that the books are going to be closed the city will have have closed out the
fiscal year and you'll have um be ready for the uh for the auditors the first week of December, but then now the next um
thing says during September. Is that supposed to be during um March? You I I thought you mentioned a few minutes ago that that March is when they usually do the year-end field work. Is that the case? >> Because this is a proposal, we want to
present the ideal time. Right. >> So, is is the March the ideal time? >> It really is not. >> Okay. Well, what what do you want them to How do you want them to flow? >> It would be ideal if they came in January. >> Okay. But I mean, I'll put January.
>> So, no, no, no, no, no. >> Okay. If this is our opportunity to present to them what we desire, let's make it reflect what we desire. And I say that simply because if you feel more
comfortable with the January time frame and knowing all that has to go into it and even you stating that you want to make sure that we get the best bang for our bug, let's let it reflect what we truly desire and it's not leave
necessarily any room for wiggle. >> Yes. >> Okay. So I can change the during September, change that to January, end of January, fieldwork complete. >> And so that will make this flow. >> Yes.
>> Can can I offer some? >> Sure. >> My my suggestion would be >> you know it's all that stuff going on for that first two weeks of the year. >> Okay. safety would be if possible February instead of January
>> February. Okay. >> Mr. I was going to back into the deadline because we're saying they're going to be before the commissioners in May and that's plenty enough time then
for them to do Okay. All right. Beautiful. So, uh, so they're going to start and finish field work in in February. That's what is ideal. That's what Okay. You All righty. And then, um, will by March
15th, is that, >> right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Now, you're meeting with the city manager, finance director, all of that. Okay. Uh, and then no later than April 30th, we get um Okay. And then Yeah. So now it now it flows.
>> There we go. Now it flows. >> Are you comfortable with the recommendation that has come? >> All right. So note those changes and we can move to the next item. I'm sorry, Miss uh Miss Meyers, do you have any? >> No, no, sorry. That was that looks good.
Thank you so much. I'll I'll I'll interject if I do. Thank you so much, though. >> Okay. One I'm sorry, chairman. The the first piece says entrance conferences with governing body. Are they are they meeting because governing body is the commissioners.
>> So they're me okay just being being uh being clear because we we mentioned commissioners in other places but we don't necessarily define >> governing body. I think at the last the last um meeting we mentioned that we
want them to interview we want them to speak to you all to the audits committee if there's an audit if we have an uh because I know uh we're researching that the audits um the function of the audit selection committee >> and if I could make a suggestion if
we're still working through that can we just say >> entrance conferences and then leave it off because I assume that our city manager and perhaps even our city attorney would be involved in a meeting at some point and they're not listed either. So maybe we just >> just say entrance conferences and don't
mention with whom. >> Okay. >> So it's it's not necessarily >> in case somebody's filling in for somebody else as well. So >> okay. >> So we're marking that off and then we're adding February as the date and
everything else should flow should flow. Okay, page nine, it has section six in the third paragraph.
The consultant word um beginning with consultants is Yeah, it's fine. I don't Yeah. >> So, it's on the page nine just two paragraphs up from uh section seven,
consultants and firm specialists, >> right? mentioned in the response to this request for proposal can only be changed with expressed prior written permission of the city of Palaca which retains the right to reject or accept the
replacements. >> Yep. >> So we would let that remain. >> Okay. >> I think let me let me just throw a different thought out there. I think what I read that to mean is should we say the firm
and firm specialist just for consistency sake because I think in the other paragraphs they use the term firm. >> Well, the it >> I think what this this is getting to are the people within the firm or the
firm the people they're using. >> Exactly. >> It's not talking about switching out the firm. It's saying if they're specialists because you bring in specialist. >> Yeah. If they if they want to switch up on us because >> we want the last say so on on that um
because we'll stick with their firm but if they put people up on a >> I follow what's the difference between a firm specialist and a consultant? >> Um there there there are two different things. you you've got someone that's within the firm whether it's uh they're
a specialist um dealing with um benefit plans or dealing with valuing intangibles or within the firm but then they may engage consultants outside of their firm uh to actually help with an issue.
>> So the special specialist >> right right there they're >> it wouldn't be a specialist of their firm. Yeah, it wouldn't be, >> right? No, I know what a consultant is. I just didn't know if a firm specialist also included consultants. >> No, I would. Again, no. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. So, we can swap out firms, but we can't swap out specialists. Let me just ask it differently. >> Yes. >> So, a firm specialist would be someone >> we can swap out a firm. >> Well, we can do any of that. If we >> So, without the firm in that paragraph, you can swap out the firm, but you can't
swap out consultants or specialists. Unless I'm reading it >> ju just so you understand the context. So with government sometimes we have um issues like environmental issues legal issue, right? And the firm may not have a onboard um lawyer, an employee that's
a lawyer. So they have to reach out to an environmental um specialist type of lawyer or labor law or something that's going on for the city where they have to reach out and that person is not an employee. So they wouldn't be considered a specialist. there would be a
consultant that the firm is hiring. >> Yeah, I guess I guess I'm I'm following that and I understand what a consultant is and I believe I think I know what a specialist is. >> But what I am saying is the way I read that paragraph >> is it is excluding specialist and
consultants, right? They cannot be swapped out without written consent from some city representative. What I am saying is if you don't have the word firm in there, it's saying the firm can swap out No. >> No. The firm could never swap out. We're
have we have a contract with the firm. So, >> yeah. What this paragraph is >> So, you're saying eliminate the word firm basically where >> No, no, no. But this let's let's do the the context of this really is because sometimes you get >> uh firms responding to RFPs. They put
their stars >> and they're they're they're uh really qualified people listed >> in the actual RFP as the people who are are going to be working on this and then later on they sort of swap out >> uh those and put them on it. And so this
is trying to protect >> us against them being able to do that. If we start with the star players, we want to finish with the star players. >> Very familiar with with what you're trying to >> Yeah. prevent from happening. I guess I'll take the conversation offline so you follow what I'm saying. >> All right.
>> So, no changes there. Is that fair to say? >> Not for me. >> No change there. Keep that there. >> Okay. Page 17 and 18. He just wondered about um these are the boilerplate
items that maybe Miss West can chime in on. I don't know if you're um it's the C scrutinized companies and G human trafficking on page 17 and 18. He wants to know if these are standard in Florida. >> Yes, they're are statutoily required.
>> Right. >> All right. Being that they are statutoily required, there would be no changes to that section. That concludes the comments. >> You have the other ones.
>> I got a different email. >> Yeah, >> I'm sorry. >> She has it now. >> I didn't have the first page. Um, >> so we'll be backing up to page three with the email that we just received from the city manager. I'm sorry, city attorney. >> Right. Page three. Page three has box proposals due
>> April 10th. And then on letter A. Okay, I just need to change that so they match. So that the dates don't match. So, I just I'll change the the date. So, if you make those changes, that'll then put us on page six, which I do
believe that we address page six with whole schedule timeline still off. Uh the next page would be page 10. revision not recommended language approved. So the rest of it is more so uh >> grammar
>> grammar dealing with spaces um and formatting. So if we can just take care of that. >> Okay. All right. I do believe that that concludes all of
the recommendations that came from Mr. Dolan. Is there any other things that need to come before from the committee? Mr. >> I guess I go back to that one paragraph. Maybe I'll say it differently where hopefully it'll make sense. So say some a firm provides a proposal that has their CEO, government affairs expert,
right? And then they have their specialists that are enterprise fund specialists or this that and the other. So, we are okay with the firm swapping out their CEO, government affairs folks that aren't specialists, right, for somebody that they just hire. That's what I'm trying to protect against, if
that makes sense because we don't specifically call out the the firm employees as a whole. We're just calling out specialists or consultants. Does that does that make sense if I say it that way? Let me let me make sure I understand it because you're I think you're saying
>> in that firm that managing partner that uh >> may not be a specialist >> may may not be a specialist um however if they are assigned to this engagement in their response to the proposal
>> they should be covered by that paragraph. anyone that when they submit their proposal, no matter their ranking in the firm, um if you're selling us this group of people, >> there's another group of people where
>> um we we get to say if you're going to change them out. >> Yeah. >> And and so in the and so it's it's uh I I don't know if that's >> so there's some So I wanted to just chime in a little bit. So with the managing if you're talking about the managing partner what we would
call >> I was just talking in general he was just giving a general example. >> Okay. So there are rules and regulations to help protect us or protect um the audit during the audit. we there the auditing
firm is required to have someone of a certain level of experience that is leading the audit and that person is usually a partner an audit partner um that person can retire um so I don't want to like put anything
on here that says it has to be the same um managing partner or the same person leading the audit. It's just as long as they have the experience, that's really what is sufficient. And what the law says that we really need is someone with
the experience of auditing our kind of form of government. >> Yeah. >> But being honest, it's >> okay. There is a standard >> and auditing, right? And the standard is being adhered to with this particular
comment here. any consultant and any firm specialist that's identified clearly in the proposal, they can't switch it out without us saying that they may do so. And that's just the way how it is. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm not suggesting we strike
any of that. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I was just making sure it covered everyone that we would not want to swap out. >> Right. >> So, he's saying, can we should we include the auditing partner or the audit manager? her to protect us. It doesn't hurt us.
>> Okay. So, >> for real? >> Yeah. No, I'm I'm just making sure we're covered, not trying to eliminate coverage, >> right? Oh, okay. Cuz that that has to be there. >> And if um Miss, you know, Mr. Sheffield, you want to
>> Well, no, it it's I'm making trying to make sure I I understand. I think he's just trying to make sure we're we're covered in there because maybe it didn't you're concerned that those two
classifications of professionals may not have included someone at the firm that we wanted to make sure we didn't lose. >> Right. 40year employee that was not specialized in one particular but he shows up on your >> first day but isn't here anymore. Are we okay with somebody they just hired?
Right. He's and and so to me to speak to what I believe he's he's saying >> is uh that consultant, firm specialists or staff um would probably cover. I think what
that that they included in the in the RFP response, >> we should have the authority to to approve if they want to change them. >> I think that's where you're going. >> Yes, I agree with that. I agree with that. Yeah. >> So I I'm going to add or staff
consultants, firm specialist, comma, or staff. >> Yes. >> And not necessarily key staff, >> right? >> Can we say key staff? >> Make more sense to say key staff cuz that lower level staff, you switch that
all day long. >> You could. >> Okay. So key staff, you do not switch. >> Yeah. >> So adding key staff, that gives I I Well, Go ahead. I'm I'm okay with staff because they don't they don't list the
the the the starting staff in a proposal >> and that's what I was gonna I was going to make mention who's to determine who their key staff is. So >> correct. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. I just was trying to give if Miss West is ever needed in something like
this that she has the way to say, "Okay, yes, he's an employee, but we you replaced him with somebody you hired yesterday, right? That may not have any experience." And that's it. Hopefully it never gets to that. But >> Miss Meyers. >> Yes, sir. I would just I I think I heard we're going to substitute the word or as
well. And it probably should be consultants, firm specialists, and >> and >> mentioned in and the rest of the paragraph. Sounds fine. >> Good point. >> Noted. >> All right. Anything else that comes
before or comes from uh the committee? All right, I think we are good with that. We will move on to item B which is discuss proposed uh framework. Mr.
Sheffield. Okay, thank you. The the document I tried to put together just one second. >> Oh yes. >> Are we sure that Miss Meyers, do you have this document as well?
you. Yes, sir. It was one of the ones that was sent out to us, the audit services guidelines. >> Yes, ma'am. Just want to make sure that we all following along. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Um, this is a suggested framework just
trying to give um some idea of the level of expectations in terms of experience, in terms of skill sets that you would expect. Uh the first part of this this
first half on the first page is just a a copy of what we determined our criteria uh was I didn't go through an exercise to develop a rubric or anything like that but I wanted you to to get some flavor
uh in terms of the distinctive uh skill sets and and level of experience so that just to judge um the individuals in the proposal by this first piece looks at their experience level and you've got an entry, you've got a mid, you've got a
senior and expert, which is would typically be the partner on the on the engagement and it gives you an idea of the number of years of experience that they uh should have for those um those
levels. Um the next page really goes through and tries to hit upon what people would consider uh effective qualities of a uh a good uh
auditor. And so it gives an introductory there um in terms of um what that should look like and then summarizes it into the areas of in terms of ethical uh behavior uh analytics and technical
skills um and uh data analysis uh cognitive uh interpersonal and operational experience. So, um,
I wasn't trying to, uh, tell you how to grade any firm. I was trying to give you a framework of what our expectations might be. Um, the other piece here on page four here then
gives you uh, some traits of ineffective auditors. So, if we're noticing any of this in our review uh of them, we we should turn away and run. No, just kidding. We should not view them or grade them as highly, right?
>> Uh with with respect to to that. So, let me know if you think this is helpful or if you were thinking as we were exchanging last time, you wanted something more specific. Um yes. So, I
uh first wanted to say thank you for putting this together. I think this is extremely helpful because once we put the RFP out, the firms will respond and that's where we'll need your help again to score the responses and the RFPs that
we get back. So, as you're scoring, you'll have this by your side to help you make the right decisions and scoring, looking through the RFP and deliberating effectively. So this your tool was great everything
>> very helpful to be >> all right good we're on the same >> the questions that are made up >> and okay >> and a lot of these you know can apply to a lot of RFPs not just it's awesome >> awesome
>> okay >> talks about values you know and that's that's a piece a lot of folks miss >> so I definitely want to thank you as well as chair um for this framework work and uh the time that you put into it and it's definitely going to be helpful for me.
So, I do have a question. Um, and they say no question is a dumb question, but I know most times when people are responding to RFPs, they put forth their best work. Are there any background or internet searches or anything that is
done from our end that may capture something that is not presented? Because of course when somebody is responding they're going to put forth top-notch, but anything that may have c come against the firm or any legal action or
any just any that could potentially help sway us in one way or another when it comes down to making a decision of a firm. We could absolutely do a background on each of the firms and we they each firm
would normally provide a list of their current clients that that's normally the way we would do it is take their list of clients and pick the cities that they've audited or they're currently auditing and ask those cities to um give us
somewhat of a survey almost of the and kind of tell us how was your experience being audited by this firm. and we'll use whatever the cities provide to us and take that into consideration. Um, we would normally only do that for like the
top three. >> Yes. Once we get to that point, not for everyone, but once we narrow down, I would definitely make the recommendation so that we are making sure that we are crossing all of our tees and dotting all of our eyes and not being caught by the
surprise of something. So, that would be my recommendation. I I I agree with those reference checks are really uh uh key. Um now although they will put on there those that they know they're going to get a good
>> that's the point >> uh review from but these are licensed individuals and we can consider this extra step >> because you can look up in your state >> and see if they're complaints uh see if there are actions against uh or if
they've been dissanctioned or disciplined as uh CPAs and so that's public record and so for these three uh uh the firm uh and the key individuals. There we go with that word key again.
But those um uh those assigned to the engagement, we could go through and look uh go online and look up uh their license. >> Yeah. And Mr. Chair, >> just one sec. Well, go ahead, Miss Myers. And then if you >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Yes. Just in in
concurrence with Mr. Sheffield's comments and everybody else's. Of course, we are requiring a peer review, their last peer review, which I believe occurs every three years, >> the peer review. Yeah. >> And so that will be part of their package. And certainly as far as the
firm goes, and their audit experience, those peer reviews are usually extremely rigorous and can be used as a measurement tool. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Alexander.
just as we get this third party feedback, how are we to incorporate that into our scoring metric? >> I believe that would fall under exp um experience or >> Well, I just want to make sure we're all
doing it the same. It's almost like uh you go through the entire process and then determine the top two or three and the top two or three you go this extra step to ensure that they're really credible
>> uh and it could be the deciding >> point but yeah the information would be provided >> and and in terms of how it fits into our scoring criteria the first piece here the technical qualifications and expertise that's really evaluating the
firm. The second one, the firm's professional experience, that is really evaluating the people they've assigned to the engagement. So, the peer review, >> right, >> um would be speaking to the the the mishaps and or missteps of of the firm,
right? the license um and the and the reference checks the the looking up in terms of the licensing and seeing if the individuals have uh issues with them that would be under the the the second one there. Yeah. >> And is that what you're looking?
>> Not really. I'm I'm asking if we have 20 points allocated to something, how do we incorporate your feedback for that particular scoring? >> So I want to explain the process. So say we get six firms You would be given a packet of each of
the six um RFPs along with a scoring sheet and you would be scoring all six firms. >> Once you've scored all six firms, you would we would meet, we would talk about that and I would tally up the scores. Everyone would provide their scoring and
we would tally the scores up and the top three scored um firms would be the three where we would take an additional step and get um the >> and where does that what I'm saying is from that point where does the feedback say you call or
>> madam manager calls >> are we finished at that point or do we evaluate the top three >> I think you make a decision we make a >> because you're making a recommendation to the >> so so how do we incorporate that feedback. We've already scored them, >> right? >> How do we incorporate the feedback that
you've gotten or madam manager has gotten into our process? >> We determine that. >> Yeah, >> we'll determine that. >> Yeah, I I think that we would actually have to give that to you once you've selected the three and then give you the evidence of the
>> But can we go back and change our scoring is what I'm asking. >> I don't think you would have to. >> Right. So, so what do we do with that feedback? we determine how we would like to proceed with making the recommendation to the commission. I don't think there you won't be able to
you won't be able to change the score. However, you can make a uh say for instance we have someone hey this was our top pick our top three picks or this is our recommendation. However, these are some of the things that we found and amongst us, we need to determine is this
the candidate or the firm that we would want to present to the commission and if that is not the case, we need to come up with an alternative of how or who which firm we are going to present to the commission. >> Yeah, I I just think the scoring mechanism is designed to make it an
objective >> and it still would be possible. >> It still would be. However, the information that's found in the background is going to provide us with that additional information because again, when people are putting things on paper, of course, they're going to put their best foot forward. And if there's
anything that we discover as a result of however the background goes and that information is presented to us, it we are determining how we would like to have that uh and move forward. >> Mr. Mr. this this is a subjective
>> uh scoring. It's based on our our our background expertise and how we view, feel, and read. And and I think that's beautiful because we're bringing different experiences here. We set up a framework of understanding. um we've laid out what we want and we
can evaluate and hopefully this once we have those top three I think what you were referring to um madam manager th this is you will then uh provide to us um the reference checks
>> uh and then the um what we're saying is background the peer review is always supposed to be already supposed to be a part of the the right And uh but like the chairperson is saying we then have to come together and
well what did you mean by that? This is scoring this but this guy had this. Oh that's what you were looking at with respect to that. Well I really think so and and go through it from that standpoint. I don't know how else I think it's kind of premature to
>> and at some point the three of you have to select only one. Mhm. >> So now we're providing you with additional information based upon, >> you know, the uh department of business professional license and all like that and and any information we've got for
how they really perform. >> They're our own auditor sometimes sends us actual form. It's form letter kind of stuff that the CPA >> would send and get a written uh background. So, is that is that what
we're going to get is something like written? So, everybody gets this. My fear is that we make a phone call, >> we call someone who is involved with the audit or a staff member of that municipality, right? And they say, "Oh, I would never use them again. They didn't communicate." And when they say
they didn't communicate frequently enough, >> they may have met all their required, right, communication, right? and they may have done the best audit that municipality has ever had, but because we all like to be communicated to differently, >> right? >> We now have
>> quote unquote one one bad review for somebody that might be a shining star, >> right, in the process. And we may be able to interpret that differently than just performing them, just basing them on they did an incredible audit, right? All we got was bad feedback now. So, how
does that cause noise in the system or or not? Maybe it doesn't matter, but just throwing that out there. So, >> but I still think that's a I I appreciate you bringing that forth now, but I still think there's opportunity for us to uh determine once we get to
that step of how we will want to get that information. >> If we have enough time to do it, then I'm fine with it. But I thought we were tight on time. >> We're tight, but we want it to be right. >> That's right. That's right. We want it right. And that's and I've sat up here long enough to determine that we have
set some things in place that we stuck by and then once we got to the latter part of it um we've had to make some changes. That's why I state let's get to that point because there may be some things that if we we lock ourselves into
if we make the determination as of now versus see cuz there may not be anything that comes out you know but I don't want to put something hey we're sticking to this and we get to that point >> I just don't like making it up as we go. That's just what I'm trying to avoid. >> But see we're setting up the platform for for years to come. So I want it to
be tight and I want it to be right. >> We got you. Well said. I'm I'm waiting for the wrap. But I would but I would say if you have a recommendation for consideration to go
ahead and start communicating that that way um once we do get to that point we are ahead of the game because you already have >> I would ask legal to to draft if it were me because I would want to protect us if we find something after we've gotten you know this course is completed that gives
us the out to eliminate somebody at the 11th hour. That would be what I was looking for. So, we will make a recommendation that staff go ahead and be proactive and looking at those um taking those taking this conversation um into consideration and bringing something back as you see fit.
>> We do have forms that they have sent in the past often. >> Are you okay with that? Uh attorney West, >> she's the best. >> And it just comes down to the protection. I don't want us to be locked into of course >> staying with the highest person and we know they have integrity issues, right?
Absolutely. >> I have a question, >> M. >> I thought that if somebody called another company and asked for that person for that company, is it against the law for them to give a bad review or
is it that you can say I'm asking >> asking just because I have to just kind of dawned on me? >> So I think what you're talking about is HR >> for h for a individual employee. that's different from a company.
>> So, you're fine. >> And we appreciate it because you just brought something up that we never thought about cuz I would have never thought about that. All right. Um, any more? Uh, Miss Myers, anything else with regards to framework?
>> No, sir. Thank you, >> Mr. Sheffield. >> No, sir. >> Mr. Alexander? >> No, sir. >> All right. we will move forward to our regular business which is publicly announcing uh the request for proposal release date.
>> Okay. So within your packet you should have a a page of the um propo revised proposed timeline. So based on the timeline, I know we we spoke about releasing the RFP
um this week, but there is a step where you we need approval from you all um for the RFP as presented and or including the changes made. Um but it has to go to the commission. So the commission has to
essentially approve the timeline. um the criteria as well. We'll talk about the criteria, but it has to go to the commission for their official approval. But first, it gets approved with you all and then I can present it to the commission. Present this timeline
to the commission. >> Well, let me ask you this because we meet next week and I know we've made requests for changes today. >> Okay. >> How would we want to proceed? because I don't want to have to necessarily meet
again. >> Okay. >> Um and help me out legal uh to where we could what can we do to not have to come back prior to the commission meeting to approve what we the suggestions that we approved today.
>> Finalize everything today. And the agenda cut off is this Friday. The agenda will be published and distributed to the public. So, as as long as you can get this all hammered out today, and I I think you're well underway to get that
done, uh, we should be fine. >> Mr. Shepher, Attorney, uh, West, when you say get it all hammered out today, is that as simple as um, you know, putting out a motion that uh, we accept uh, the,
>> believe it or not, >> the proposal. >> Yes. with with the mark changes as presented and the SK. Okay. >> All right. >> And that's what I'm hammer. Yes. >> Okay. Back to you, Miss Pierre. >> Um I I think that's all. I mean, if
you're okay with the revised um timeline, then we can proceed. Please note that um with regards to the timeline where you come in again after today, if everything goes as planned, the proposal evaluation.
Okay, I'm I'm listening. >> So, where you would come in as the audit committee would be at the proposal evaluation April 22nd. Before that date, I will be giving you the proposals um that I receive on um a few days after
the 10th. So, I believe the 10th, I'm not sure what day of the week that is, but say the 12th, I give you the all the proposals. Um, and also the rubric to score the the proposals. And you would have from the
date I give you the proposals until April 22nd is when we would need to meet. And everyone would provide their scoring. And at that time, I would um tally the scores. So, April 10th is a
Friday and April 22nd is a Wednesday. >> So, as long as you're away just >> Okay. So, as long as you're available um that week on or the following week after the 10th, so to come pick up the
the RFPs because it will be um hard I'll have hard copy and I will have electronic um files as well. But if I can find a way to share that with you electronically, then that's easier. But we'll have printed hard copies that you
would need to pick up at the week after the Friday or a few days after Friday. So that Monday or Tuesday if you're make sure that you're here to be able to pick up, we'd send an email with all the details. I know that's around >> 13th or the 14th. >> The 13th or the 14th is when we would
need you to come pick up the RFPs in order to um score them. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, ma'am. Miss Myyers, >> I just want to clarify, make sure I understood when we pick this packet up with the rubrics and the scoring
is was it indicated that we would actually be in scoring these ourselves independently from the board? >> Yes. >> Okay. That's part of the or Miss West can chime in at any time, but that is a
requirement where the sunshine um law um where you have to individually score. Mr. Sheffield cannot influence um u Mr. Jeremy um and you can't you can't influence anyone. You have to
individually score, which is why Mr. Sheffield took the time to put that um framework together for us with with good information to help you score. And when we meet on the 22nd, that's when we can all everyone can give their scoring and
make sure that we're adhering to the Florida statute for procurement process. >> A followup, please. So then on April 22nd, we're just submitting them and that's it. >> We're meeting. We have to meet >> but we're just submitting bringing our
packet and somebody's tallying it and coming up with the >> the totals. >> Well, okay. Just so you understand in detail, I will give you the you would already have the scoring rubric um that you would have picked up and you would be filling that out, right? And when you
come to the meeting, I will ask >> Miss Meyers, what's your score for firm ABC? And she and you would provide me that score. >> Okay. >> Right. And we would go through each >> I didn't know if we had to provide that to you before the meeting so you could
do a tell. Okay. >> You can't provide it to me before. It has to be at the meeting. >> Okay. All right. Beautiful. >> Miss West, >> you're just going to go through everybody on this this this and then you will have all the tallies and then you'll just tell us what it total to I suppose.
>> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so with regards to the picking up, >> I would preferably request if possible a electronic copy only because I'll be out
of town for FBC Leo conference and so I want to make sure that I have it. Um, but I will be going the days that we'll be able to pick up. I'll be out. I'll already be there. >> Well, Mr. Chairman, while we're discussing this date, and it's not my
intention to delay, and I hear what you're saying, if it's a packet like I've received before, they will be large. >> Um, I'm actually out of town beginning on the 10th of April through the 18th of
April, um, for a family wedding. So, it's not something I can actually change. I would not be able to do due diligence digitally. I am sure um just having looked at these packets before
at least with my abilities. I would not be able to do that effectively and I would not be able to pick it up on the 20th and have and score these by the 22nd. >> We could email we could mail them to you physically. We can overnight the packet
to you if you provide an address. we can we can overnight it to you so you can have the packet via mail. >> I mean, but I am I want to reiterate what she stated that she's going to be away for a family event that requires
I'm sure she doesn't want to be at a wedding. uh reviewing your RFP just like I'm nine times out of 10 and just like nine times and nine times out of 10 I'm at a conference where I'm the president of which my time is limited there anyway.
So um ju we're just putting those out there for consideration. >> Oh absolutely Mr. Chairman I don't intend to spend this family time reading these packets. >> No worries if I need to be replaced I'm absolutely fine with that. Can
>> Miss West, >> Mr. uh >> can I offer a a thought first with a question? Um proposals due 2 p.m. April 10th >> and then kind of a tight time frame between the 10th and the 22nd if someone is going to be out. I don't know when
spring break is, but I'm sure it's in that before. >> Okay. So then from April 22nd to May 14th, what occurs with this committee in that time frame? nothing occurs. Um we're just between
the proposal evaluation and the intent. We have to have a >> Is there a statutory requirement that we have to >> a certain number of days >> days something? >> I don't think so. It's just so that we can go to um present this to the
commission. There's a protest period that's three days after we three days before we post or no three days after we post on the website our intent to award. >> So So when is the commission meeting? Let's go this way because I do have >> the commission meetings on the on what
day >> in May. >> There's two meetings in May. >> 14th and the 28th. >> So those dates are the commission meeting dates because we have to do the notice at a commission meeting on the website. So we're going to >> 14th and the 28th. >> So the intent to award is going to be
posted after the commission meeting that night. Is that correct? >> Um that's the intent. But I mean I can >> So if I can make a suggestion, the um agenda cutoff deadline for the 14th of May would be May 8th.
>> May 8th >> drop deadline. So we have to >> So ideally you've been meeting on Wednesdays. If you could meet on Wednesday, May 6th, push that April 22nd date to Wednesday, May 6th. That would
still give the clerk enough time uh to get it on the agenda for the meeting on the 14th. >> Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the interest and activity here. I don't know that we need that length of time, but certainly perhaps the next Wednesday, the 29th or
>> that's what >> the 28th or the >> and let me Yeah, I I concur and and I only suggest the 29th as well because I think we're missing a meeting based on our conversation earlier where we were going to I thought narrow it down to two or three and then we were going to get
some feedback after that and have another meeting unless I'm missing something. >> Oh, okay. This to schedule the interview. Well, if you wanted to interview the firms. >> No, I think you were going to call or someone was going to call and get feedback is what we talked about earlier. What you were talking about?
>> So, we were going to have a meeting. So, we were I thought on the um evaluation we were getting down to two or three is what I heard earlier. Right. So, we don't have a meeting that I see on here after that to get to one. Right. >> Right. So, this timeline is to put in
the RFP. Mhm. >> So, >> well, as we're talking about this conversation and the dates, I think we need to en ensure we accommodate that additional meeting and I think we can do it by the 29th is all I'm >> If you wanted to schedule any interviews with the biders, they would need to be
advised of that interview date. I don't know if that's something you're contemplating or not, but that would need to be part of the schedule. I didn't. >> So, I should add a line saying final interviews >> if if that is >> I'm not asking for that. >> An interview. >> I didn't ask for that.
>> And I'm not interested in that. >> Yeah. I'm not >> I am just interested in in trying to make the 22nd date be the 29th and if there's a need to meet, as Mr. Alexander explained, to go from the 3 to one, either between the 29th and the 6th or
between the 22nd and the 29th. I mean, that could actually be on the 22nd because I'm back in town, but I wouldn't have had the time to read all those packets by the 22nd. >> 29th of April for the next meeting for
>> the 29th. >> Okay. Um, okay, that's fine. No, if we do the 29th, we have a budget workshop scheduled. Oh, >> does it have to be on a Wednesday? >> No, ma'am. >> Are you?
>> Not for me. >> I'm fine. It's long, but I know the 29th we have >> second budget workshop. >> Can we Can we do some What about the 28th? >> Mhm. >> I'm fine about that. >> We're good. >> Okay. So the proposal evaluation I will
advise it to April 28th and and we've agreed that there won't be any interviews. >> Correct. >> No no no orals from any of the uh responders and then but I think the
getting it down from the 3 to one be on the May 6th is would be so I wouldn't want to forget that on here. So, you want to have a meeting for >> So, >> the sixth is the last day that I heard, right, for the clerk to have time to
incorporate it into the agenda >> for the 8th. >> May. >> Yes. So, if we did it on the 6th and so between the 28th and the 6th, we would need the uh references and and um
background information for those top three. >> Okay. Is that what we're >> Yeah. Any feedback that we receive from the phone calls from those three, you know, municipalities or whoever we call >> agree. >> Yep. Sounds works for me.
>> Sounds good. It works for me as well. >> Okay. So, so we have a meeting scheduled April 28th for the proposal evaluation and then another meeting May 6th to provide the background feedback um on that date.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> I'm open actually. >> That works. >> That works. >> Okay. >> Yes. All right. >> Okay. Would you officially approve the
revised timeline that >> So, at this time, we will entertain a motion. Well, actually, we need to go and accept the uh >> the RFP >> the RFP. >> Okay.
>> Given the uh corrections that we've uh identified today, and then I'll feel comfortable moving forward to approve the timeline. Okay. >> Motion to approve the RFP with the corrections uh agreed to by the
committee today. In addition to line page three of the draft we looked today incorporating those date changes into page three um which has those same dates,
>> right? So we need to make those same changes, >> right? and take remove the words proposed from both because that will be the timeline. Correct. >> Correct. >> We have a motion to accept the RFP
giving the um changes that were made today. Also to incorporate the revised proposed timeline to page three of the RFP and removing the words and correcting the removing the words as well. U may we I have a motion. Do we
have a second? >> Second. Have a motion and it's been properly second. All in favor do so by saying I. I. >> Any opposed do so by saying nay. Motion passes. At this time do we still we do we still need to because we actually accepted the
proposed timeline as a part of the RFP. So we there's not a necessarily um having to uh address that again. So, we can move forward. >> Okay. Just so that um I'm concerned because I want to just make sure we just
cover all of our bases. So, um I know that these the um criteria, the RFP criteria is included in the RFP. Um but if you could just like approve this what I what's presented. It is in it is the same thing
as what was in the RFP, but just so we have it on record that >> No, we were going to approve that, but I'm talking about the revised proposed timeline cuz you wanted us to approve that as well, didn't you? >> Oh, yes. Yes, >> that was incorporated into the approval of the the first motion. So now moving
to the uh item B which is approval of RFP uh selection criteria which is found in our packet as page 11 of 11.
This is the same information that is in the RFP that you have just Yeah, she's updated. >> Right. It includes any all the revisions
we've mentioned previously. This is just for um a requirement by the Florida Auditor General that the audit selection committee approves the criteria. So, I just want to have it on record that you've approved this criteria and this will be
once you've approved it, you're giving me the ability to present this to the commission. All right. Has everyone had the opportunity to review? I see Mr. Alexander is still taking a glance. I see a small typo. >> Okay.
>> In in three. >> Okay. >> Um the second sentence tailored to the specific needs of >> Okay. >> Just for clarity, um what I'm presenting to the commission
is just the criteria and the revised timeline. that I'm not um able to present them with the full RF. >> But I know if it comes to the commission and that there is some error, that's why we want to make sure that that little
small stuff that may not mean much. Um a lot of times when we do stuff and we see it over and over, we kind of skip over because we know exactly what it's supposed to say. But I just want to eliminate it coming to the commission and it being further delayed because there is a error of sort.
>> Absolutely. And just a question for my benefit. Um 2026. Has the RFP been assigned a number yet or no? >> Not yet. It'll be assigned a number once we >> once it's in order. >> Released. Yep. >> All right. Has everyone had time? If so,
I would entertain a motion at this time. >> I move to accept the criteria as presented for 11 of 11. >> Second. giving the >> giving the change to section three. So second >> I believe Miss Meyers second.
>> Oh okay. >> All right. We have a motion and it's been properly second. All in favor of accepting this criteria given the change. >> Do so by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed do so by saying nay. Hearing
none. The motion passes. All right. And at this time is there any additional >> There is unfortunately um at at your last meeting there was um an issue raised about the audit committee members
continuing past the point of evaluation. So, I looked into this. Um, the resolution that this city commission approved referenced the original resolution that was established in 2014
that basically established the audit committee. It in it basically had that resolution attached as exhibit A, but that exhibit A was actually not included as part of the agenda packet. So, you as committee
members probably have no idea unless you took it upon yourselves to go research what resolutions were passed in 2014. But let me read the clause that is specifically um on point. The audit committee shall
monitor the annual city audit and the processes relating to the performance of the annual city audit. Review the financial statements prior to completion of the annual city audit. review the results of the annual city audit, evaluate management's proposed
corrective action plans to any comments by the city auditors, monitor those action plans, and evaluate the city auditor's performance and such other performance matters as may be appropriate. So that that resolution from 2014 still stands. However, you
probably did not realize when you were appointed to this committee that your obligations would extend that far. you probably thought you were just going to evaluate like a regular RFP and be done with your obligations. So, uh, in
consulting with the city manager, um, we wanted to bring this to your attention that the obligations actually extend past the evaluation point and give you an opportunity to step down. um
if that is a commitment that you are just simply not prepared to undertake, which is completely understandable. Um and if that is the case, we'll go back to the city commission to fill the vacancy because it is a five um committee board. So, I I just wanted to
bring that to your attention. You don't need to make a decision now. Um but that that is quite the commitment. >> I guess I do have one comment. There are some things in there that I haven't received yet that I will need um to be able to meet my obligations. So the
specifically the financial reports um I think I heard mentioned in there that we're supposed to review those and then I need to be aware of those before we participated with the audit itself. So >> Okay. So that's a a little bit different, right? I I think you had
previously requested for uh financial reports as of your participation right now. Correct. >> Oh, I'm just talking specifically what was in that resolution. Can you read that part to me again? >> Yeah. So, this is this is basically an ongoing obligation after the firm is
selected. >> Your duties according to the 2014 resolution are not over. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I got that. I was just talking about the financial it references the budget I thought in there. What does it say the requirements? >> You will need financial statements. Um you will
>> but it will be for that time frame and not necessarily now. >> Correct. >> Right. And it'll be >> well I think we're being audited for the 25 right or no >> this is already done. This is for the next audit. This is not for the upcoming. This is the next audit year. >> Right. >> 26 27.
>> 26 27. So, you wouldn't actually get to work until February of 2027 approximately in in overviewing the auditor's performance basically. So, I I just wanted to bring that to your attention because I don't think there
there was a realization that your obligations extended that far >> and perhaps we can send them that so they have that. >> I will. >> Yeah. Wait, cl there's something that need to be clarified. >> I just heard something different, >> you know. What that means
>> prior to the clarification of >> just one second of order >> just for a point. Mr. Alexander has a statement. >> Oh, >> I mean not Mr. Alexander, Mr. Sheffield. >> I'm looking dead at >> Well, all right. You You guys, we look
alike. Um Hey, um I thank the the the the staff um uh with respect to this because you guys were well prepared because you included that in our very first uh bit of documentation. Uh I know the
number was off in terms of that that that additional resolution in there, but it it clearly you guys notified us at that time. When I read that, I said, "Oh my Okay, so this is a little bit different."
>> Um but I I that is a best practice, >> right? >> Uh and so I'm glad to see that um that would continue. Uh, but I can understand if someone didn't really um notice or
know that that is a different >> from a public notice standpoint because it wasn't included in the agenda. I I wanted to bring it to your attention for notice standpoint and give you the opportunity to, you know, not awkwardly feel like, oh, I bit off more than I can
chew. And additionally the reports and you'll clarify it that it's referring to is upon completion yeah >> of the audit. It's after the audit is done. >> Right. After >> after it's completed >> right after the audit we would have a
final uh financial statement and at that time is when you would review the financial statement. It would be presented to you or sent to you. >> So the last committee reviewed the 2025. Is that what >> I'm just not ask any questions that get us in trouble.
>> Well, that's the more that's the feedback I asked for. It's not a question I haven't already asked in writing. So, I asked for that in writing in the previous audit committee. >> I don't think that practice has been followed. But but actually I I actually think that we actually get involved
before that because actually in the RFP if you look at the red the change that's there it mentions a meeting with us uh >> so that they know that they're reporting to you all. >> Correct. And that'll be before that. So we'll get the we'll get it squared away.
But I think the most important thing here is to uh what Miss West is saying, making sure we're all aware of this extended >> uh participation >> and see if we're >> it's not forever. Remember that it's based on who appointed you and that
commissioner's tenure. So if that the commissioner that appointed you was Commissioner Davis, >> welcome to the team. >> So actually that is not what the resolution says. That is for the initial committee. Um, unfortunately the
resolution is silent as to the committees after that follow. So, we probably need to clean up the term. Uh, but basically it it the way it currently reads, it's in perpetuity until there's
a vacancy. So, we need to clean up the term because that is not clear in the resolution. It the term only applies to the initial committee. So, we need to clean that up. So, we appreciate staff um for bringing this back to us and we look forward to again if that is not a
commitment that you are willing to make, please contact Miss Pierre, Miss uh uh city manager Cardi or our city attorney, Miss West, so that we would be able to adhere. Again, there will be no >> ill feelings because again, this is a
commitment and we want to make sure that um with our commitment that we are dedicated to our especially this audit. The audit is very very very important for the operations of the city. So again, if it's not something that you cannot do, there will be no ill
feelings. We thank you for serving as you have done so this far because I believe that this has allowed us the opportunity to set it up better for years to come. Um, and that is what we have been striving to do with a lot of
different policies and procedures and things of that nature. So, this is only one thing that we'll be able to say it's ready for our next uh next phase of audit reviews for this uh city. So, is there any additional information or any concerns u comments from the committee
or staff? Yes, Miss Pierre. >> Oh, please don't step down until we've selected a firm. We need your help and we appreciate your >> So, if we can carry out what we thought we were carrying out prior to and then we'll have discussion. Yes, ma'am. We
understand. Um, is there anything, Mr. Alexander, that you need to bring before the committee, Mr. Sheffield? >> Yes. Thank you. Uh, and especially if you put in that weekend work because that was a a quick turnaround. >> Uh, so
>> and I believe I told her to go home. Miss myers, is there anything that you would like to add? >> No, sir. Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you. I'll move for an adjournment. >> So move. >> So move. We have a motion and it's been second. And I don't think anyone is
standing in the way of going home. Say I.e.