2011 008 Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~ April 8, 2009 The Honorable Mary Taylor, CPA Ohio Auditor of State Office of Auditor of State 88 East Broad Street, 5`h Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Dear Ms. Taylor: We have reviewed the system of quality control of the Ohio Auditor of State (the office) in effect for the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009. A system of quality control encompasses the office's organizational structure and the policies adopted and procedures established to provide it with reasonable assurance of conforming with government auditing standards. The design of the system and compliance with it are the responsibility of the office. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the design of the system, and the office's compliance with the system based on our review. We conducted our review in accordance with the policies and procedures for external peer reviews established by the National State Auditors Association (NSAA). In performing our review, eve obtained an understanding of the office's system of quality control for engagements conducted in accordance with government auditing standards. In addition, we tested compliance wifh the office's quality control policies anal procedures to the extent we considered appropriate. These tests covered the application of the office's policies and procedures on selected engagements_ The engagements selected represented a reasonable cross-section of the office's engagements conducted in accordance with government auditing standards. We believe that the procedures we performed provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our review was based on selective tests; therefore it would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system of quality control or all instances of lack of compliance with it. Also, there are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of quality control; therefore, noncompliance with the system of quality control may occux and not be detected. Projection of any evaluation of a system of quality control to future periods is subject to the risk that the system of quality control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or because the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. In our opinion, the system of. quality control of the Ohio Auditor of State in effect for the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009, has been suitably designed and tivas complied with during the period to provide easonable assurance of conforming with government auditing standards. Team Leader C curring Reviewer National State Auditors Association National State Auditors Association External Peer Review Team External Peer Review Team 449 l_ewi~ tian;e[t Cicek, Stti[e 29U, I_exin~~um, Kentvcky4Q5C1~,.;Sg(i, Telephone tg54Y 276-I t4?, Fax ({iS9) Zl$-45[f7 414 ?v. C:[[pi[oi `~~ct, N~4', Suite 231, wash.ingten. Di" 2ti;}C)1. Teleghonc i2C.t2} 624 :4S }. Fay; C2f12) 624.547: ~'x~x~.tc[[.s~c! erg