Hawaii County auditor's office receives 'pass' peer review; reviewers praise controls and dashboard
July 07, 2026 | Hawaii County, Hawaii
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Hawaii County Communication Reports and Council Oversight Committee heard on July 7 that the County Auditor's Office received the highest-level peer-review result for the review period 07/01/2022 through 06/30/2025. County Auditor Claire McAdam introduced two external reviewers, who told the committee they issued a "pass opinion with no management letter comment."
Paul Guy, who identified himself as chief auditor for Milwaukee Public Schools, and Stan Sewell, city auditor for Chattanooga, Tennessee, told the committee their review covered the auditor office's manuals, written policies, internal monitoring procedures, a sample of engagements and working papers, training and independence. "All of that work resulted in a pass opinion with no management letter comment," Guy said. "We opine that the office was adhering to the government auditing standards really at the highest level of assurance."
The reviewers singled out robust internal monitoring, strengthened segregation of duties, staff training and the office's independence as key strengths. They also praised the Office of Housing and Community Development's dashboard and the auditor office's cooperation during the on-site review. "You have an excellent leadership team in Claire and Max and ... a team of audit professionals that do quality work," Guy said.
Why it matters: a peer-review finding with no management letter comment indicates external reviewers found no control deficiencies warranting formal management recommendations; that finding bolsters public confidence in the auditor office's practices and supports the council's oversight function.
What the reviewers did: they examined procedural materials, interviewed audit staff, tested selected transactions and reviewed independence documentation. They noted the three-year peer-review cadence called for under government auditing standards and recommended the office continue its internal monitoring and training practices.
The committee recorded the presentation, heard brief questions, and the chair closed the file on the communication by voice vote (9 in favor).
Paul Guy, who identified himself as chief auditor for Milwaukee Public Schools, and Stan Sewell, city auditor for Chattanooga, Tennessee, told the committee their review covered the auditor office's manuals, written policies, internal monitoring procedures, a sample of engagements and working papers, training and independence. "All of that work resulted in a pass opinion with no management letter comment," Guy said. "We opine that the office was adhering to the government auditing standards really at the highest level of assurance."
The reviewers singled out robust internal monitoring, strengthened segregation of duties, staff training and the office's independence as key strengths. They also praised the Office of Housing and Community Development's dashboard and the auditor office's cooperation during the on-site review. "You have an excellent leadership team in Claire and Max and ... a team of audit professionals that do quality work," Guy said.
Why it matters: a peer-review finding with no management letter comment indicates external reviewers found no control deficiencies warranting formal management recommendations; that finding bolsters public confidence in the auditor office's practices and supports the council's oversight function.
What the reviewers did: they examined procedural materials, interviewed audit staff, tested selected transactions and reviewed independence documentation. They noted the three-year peer-review cadence called for under government auditing standards and recommended the office continue its internal monitoring and training practices.
The committee recorded the presentation, heard brief questions, and the chair closed the file on the communication by voice vote (9 in favor).
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
