Most notably, the Legislative Committee (“LC”) will consider the approval of an “Audit Committee.” You will recall that I had discussed this very idea some time ago in prior posts: Here & Here.
The LC moved to table further discussion pending further consideration of the number of members which would sit on this committee, and also, how many members of this committee would be from the General Public (non-Commissioners).
Much of the discussion had to do with the need for members of the General Public. It was submitted that we do not need members of the General Public because we now have an accountant on the Commission. I personally disagree with this analysis. I would submit that the core function of this committee demands a level of accountability. Commissioners, notwithstanding their respective professions, should not be charged with the function of essentially auditing themselves. I would further submit that the purpose of this committee would be effectively neutered if Commissioners are solely responsible for the prospective function of the Audit Committee.
However, the balance must be counter-weighed with an appropriate mix of commissioners and members of the General Public.
In my own consideration, I would propose that the membership of this committee be comprised of 2 members of the General Public and 3 Commissioners.