JurisdictionCaliforniaCode GOVGovernment Code - GOV
Div.3.
Title 2.DIVISION 3. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Part 3.PART 3. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Ch. 5.CHAPTER 5. The State Leadership Accountability Act
This text of California § 13401. (13401. (Amended by Stats. 2015, Ch. 25, Sec. 14.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
(a)The Legislature finds all of the following:
(1)Active oversight processes, including regular and ongoing monitoring processes, for the prevention and early detection of fraud and errors in program administration are vital to public confidence and the appropriate and efficient use of public resources.
(2)Fraud and errors in state programs are more likely to occur from a lack of effective systems of internal control in state agencies when active monitoring measures are not maintained to ensure that controls are functioning properly.
(3)Effective systems of internal control provide the basic
foundation upon which a structure of public accountability must be built.
(4)Effective systems of internal control are necessary to ensure that state resources are adequately safeguarded, mo
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(a)
The Legislature finds all of the following:
(1)
Active oversight processes, including regular and ongoing monitoring processes, for the prevention and early detection of fraud and errors in program administration are vital to public confidence and the appropriate and efficient use of public resources.
(2)
Fraud and errors in state programs are more likely to occur from a lack of effective systems of internal control in state agencies when active monitoring measures are not maintained to ensure that controls are functioning properly.
(3)
Effective systems of internal control provide the basic
foundation upon which a structure of public accountability must be built.
(4)
Effective systems of internal control are necessary to ensure that state resources are adequately safeguarded, monitored, and administered.
(5)
Systems of internal control are necessarily dynamic and must be routinely monitored, continuously evaluated, and, where necessary, improved.
(6)
Reports regarding the continuing adequacy of the systems of internal control of each state agency are necessary to enable the executive branch, the Legislature, and the public to evaluate each state agency’s performance of its public responsibilities and accountability.
(b)
The Legislature declares all of the following to be the policies of the state:
(1)
Each state agency must maintain effective systems of internal control as an integral part of its management practices.
(2)
The systems of internal control of each state agency shall be evaluated on an ongoing basis through regular and ongoing monitoring processes and, when detected, weaknesses must be promptly corrected.
(3)
All levels of management of state agencies must be involved in assessing and strengthening the systems of internal control to minimize fraud, errors, abuse, and waste of government funds. Monitoring processes should be designed to ensure objectivity of persons tasked with monitoring. Objectivity means allowing those tasked with monitoring to maintain integrity, impartiality, a questioning state of mind, and the ability to accurately and fairly assess circumstances and draw sound conclusions.
(4)
It shall be the responsibility of the Department of Finance, in consultation with the Controller and the California State Auditor, to establish guidelines for how the objectivity of the persons tasked with monitoring processes are to be maintained. Those guidelines should include establishing monitor training programs, identification of appropriate chain-of-command reporting relationships, and recommended best practices for professional development and the conduct of objective monitoring, including, but not limited to, practices for the regular dissemination of strategies and lessons learned from successful efforts to strengthen state administration via interagency cooperation.