County Commission debates auditing firm selection after 32 years with Gilbert and Stewart

In a recent meeting of the Utah County Commission, the topic of external auditing services took center stage, sparking a lively discussion about the long-standing relationship with the auditing firm Gilbert and Stewart. For over three decades, this firm has provided auditing services to the county, raising questions about the necessity of change and adherence to best practices.

The commission received two proposals for auditing services, with Gilbert and Stewart ranked first and Squire coming in second. While Gilbert and Stewart's bid was notably lower in cost, concerns were raised about the implications of maintaining the same auditing firm for 32 years, far exceeding the recommended practice of rotating firms every five years. This recommendation, endorsed by the Government Finance Officers Association, aims to ensure fresh perspectives and objectivity in financial oversight.

Commissioners expressed a mix of appreciation for the quality of service provided by Gilbert and Stewart and a desire for new insights. One commissioner noted, “I have no issue with the services we've received from Gilbert and Stewart in the past. However, having the same external auditing firm for 32 years... it might not be a bad idea to mix it up a little.” This sentiment echoed throughout the discussion, highlighting a growing consensus that a change could be beneficial.

The conversation also touched on the potential for embedding a rotation policy into county code to prevent future commissions from facing the same dilemma. However, some commissioners hesitated, citing concerns that such a policy could limit flexibility in choosing the best option based on available bids.

As the meeting progressed, the cost difference between the two proposals became a focal point. Gilbert and Stewart's bid was approximately 50% less than Squire's, but the commissioners weighed this against the number of hours of service offered, which was significantly higher in Gilbert and Stewart's proposal. “The amount of hours is... really important,” one commissioner remarked, emphasizing the need for thorough on-site engagement during the auditing process.

Ultimately, the commission faced a decision that balanced cost, quality of service, and the need for fresh perspectives. As they deliberated, the importance of ensuring accountability and transparency in county finances remained at the forefront of their discussions. The outcome of this decision will not only impact the county's financial oversight but also set a precedent for future auditing practices, reflecting a commitment to best practices in governance.